TALKBACK 2000: August-December

 

August 21/2000/Message/Comments on Preservation Plus article

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:00:21 -0300 (EST)

From: "Odo

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: Greetings

Good day, Lucio!

 

About the article. I think its OK! I agree with your 5th conclusion, the most

Important.

There are only two problems:

1) preservation. You cannot touch the area! Not also when this area were

exploited under a sustainable way, like the indians did. And the indians

say that they are the only capable to preserve native forests.

Besides preservation I think that we need to recover/restore (functions and

structure), rehabilitate (only the functions) or reallocate (give an other

destination/use to the destroyed landscape, like by mining). Or it can be

improved. With organic matter input, and the use of the agroforestry we can

improve the agricultural yields per surface unity (also by introducing the

multifunctional use).

I can add that the preservation areas today are to few to improve the global

climate quality, and our global sustainability. The degraded agricultural and

urban areas also need to be restored urgently.

2) I say this because I noted that the heavy pressure of the economical

component (against the social and environmental) turning the agriculture

in a money making machine, not a food supplier, tracks the agriculture

to expand their area over the natural environments (forests). There is not

enough area for agriculture to gain money (scale production). Although there

is food production in excess to supply the hungry people (they only have no

money to buy it. Here people say, that nothing is really expensive: only our

income is low). Our farmers destroy their areas (water and soil conservation

practices increase the production costs!!??) and move to new natural areas,

in a 3-4 year cycle.

So I thing that the life style and the life goal is wrong: only make money.

People say: "latter we will talk about environment"! ("very important!!! I

dont know for what but everybody speak about!!") and perhaps the social ("we

need buyers for our production!! This is something clearer!"). You also

concluded this about the social x market sustainability.

To this two problems I can add another big problem being the mechanism to

improve the economical component: competition in a global form. This allow

only some few peoples and enterprises to produce and gain money, and kill

all the others, independent if they are efficient/productive or no.

Competition for money kills also very efficient peoples and companies.

Also unfair methods will be employed and succeed. Efficient enterprises

will be destroyed for making fast money!

The main goal need to be changed! Our challenge need to be: turn the world

in a green flowering garden in which all will live well and healthy!! (we

have place for 26.000.000.000 vegetarian/grain eater inhabitants). Not to

accumulate money!! Destroying all the Creation. This remains a very poor

goal for humankind!

So I thing that gain money (99% goal)dont matches with preservation and

social goals.

And these alone will not work in a world where money over all is the life

principle, in special in urban areas, where people dont have conditions to

produce their own water, food and energy. Urban people have the political

power in hands. Urban people are the main pressure agents on the natural

resources and forests. Poverty is a secondary scale destroying force. The

first scale destruction force is the action of the riches and big enterprises

on natural environments, and the unfairness is that they use the proposal of

preservation, only to guarantee the rich biodiversity and mineral ores to

their own future needs!

I did read a german paper in which they say that in view of the need of be

able (european community) to compete with americans they need to loosen or

cut environmental and social aspects and benefits, and boost up the

economical aspect!!!! That is the main problem. Bloody competition. Not

improvement of life and life quality.

With best regards,

Odo

August 25/2000/Comment on "introduction to deep ecology

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

To: <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>, "Guido …du.ar>

Subject: Re: [listatheomai] Introduction to deep ecology

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 23:47:36 -0700

Dear Friends, while I respect the existence of the deep ecology paradigm, I

disagree with what I perceive are the implications within the statement

below for the following reasons: a) it implies that the exclusion of

environmenal concerns is a fairly recent event. They have been ignored

since the beginning of agriculture, at least. What is a fairly recent

event(1987 to be precise) is the formal recognition of environmental

concerns; b) since environmental stakeholders were not part of the group of

humans in discourse until failry recently as mentioned above, only economic

and social stakeholders have been traditionally the participants of this

"human discourse". However, the communication and poverty gap between

economic and social agents has been expanding through time, not the

communication per se; c) on the contrary, communication and the partnership

between economic and environmenal stateholders is expanding today; and d)

the statement below confuses me as in my opinion, and based on the above,

since the 1970s there has been an expansion of human(economy and society)

conciousness, specially in developed countries first(inductors), and now in

developing countries(recievers of induction). Your comments are very

welcome.

Greetings to all;

Lucio

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

 

> > *****************

> >

> >Introduction to deep ecology

> > Human discourse has expanded regarding the communication

> >to other humans yet it has also "narrowed" in that it has come

> >to exclude the rest of Nature from human consciousness.

>

August 28/2000/Comment on the More to less article

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:55:35 -0300 (EST)From: "Odo ….br>To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: New article draft

Good day, Lucio!

More or less? Perhaps the middle way!

In the last days some new ideas rised up. Talking to a MS student on

forest botany (lianes) he told me that in our site (where I am working),

after his field survey, the biodiversity of lianes is one of the

biggest in the Atlantic forest. And the question was why? Water supply?

An author wrote that biodiversity is bigger on intermediate soil fertility

level. That is perhaps what happened. The site he did the survey is of

middle soil fertility (distrophic, low base saturation) but the very close

neighbor sites are alic (alumminum saturation, showing cerrado

vegetation) and eutrophic (high base saturation, with Atlantic forest).

In this case there could be a diffusive nutrient flow by litter deposition,

creating a very big diversification of niches and life. The extreme

environments (alic and eutrophic) could not show such a diversity, they

are highly selective. More or less?!! I think the middle way is that we

need. Diversity is riches, not specialization in one culture/product.

I can add that poor and riches promote environmental destruction in the

same scale, although with different goals.

You wrote about the excess is seen as more important. But there is a black

point: top goal to get money in excess is seen as important and this is

destructive. More money isnt the same as more life quality. This is the

problem. An excess in life quality or environmental quality isnt by far

not so dangerous as get money in excess.

...." The more each individual can get from available production and

consumption for his own welfare now the better, and the view that all

participants can benefit from participation makes its promotion easier

as individuals in all countries see the possibility of sharing in on

those benefits"....... In part it is so. But nowadays we see that it is

not so. The producers try to, through a beautiful marketing, sell goods

no so necessary and sometimes dangerous to a health life quality. The

producers try to make return the money they spent to develop a product

so fast as possible. They are in far not so interested in the well being

of the consumers. The goal is not the welfare of the consumer (Henry

Ford was an exception). The goal is to make money. This is the difference

that we need to change.

......" In theory, the less is better paradigm could lead to a sustained

situation that could be more socially and environmentally friendly than

the sustained situation that existed in the more is better paradigm, but

only if implemented under a notion of equal initial production and

consumption endowments and costs for all individuals in all countries"

...... As stated above, this remain a problem: it is impossible to

globalize the more, and is not sustainable to improve the more for G7

at expenses of the extreme poverty of the others. I need to make the best

at local scale, and the global can try to arise the life standard in

potentially poor areas. Remember that I wrote you about the correlation

between soil fertility/climate (environmental) goodness and social/economic

welfare.

......." However, in a world where individual production and consumption

choices are very unevenly distributed, the implementation of the less is

better paradigm is bound to have two kinds of serious sustainability

limitations: those based on individual consumption differentials, and

those based on individual production differentials. For example, even

if individuals in all countries agree to consume less today, consumption

bundles for some individuals (developed countries) would be higher than

those of other individuals (developing countries). On the other hand,

under unequal initial consumption bundles, those with the higher

consumption bundles would easier agree to consume less than those with

the lowest bundles, especially if those individuals with these lowest

bundles are not even meeting their basic needs".... See, as seen for the

diversity of forest species linked to niche production potential, I think

that the same could occur with the humans. When you see the cattle, in

poor pastures the animal weight gain depends on the ability to eat high

protein leaves. The only big difference between a poor and a rich pasture

in the trpics is not the animal weight gain (similar in both) but the

stocking rate (population). This I may transfer to our case study with

humans. I may prroduce and consume more or less at niche scale, but cannot

try this to a global scale. This will be unsustainable, also when only

G7 try to do this with theirselves in relation to the whole world.

This is a crime against the peoples, the creation and the Creator!

nteresting when you are aware that this concept is forwarded by so called

christians.

........" Notice that one way of eliminating this consumption differential

is through having all individuals consuming at optimal levels at the same

time"; and " Notice that one way of eliminating this differential is

through having all individuals produce at optimal values at the same time".

.... See, as stated above, it is not easy to one global optimal level of

consumption and production. There are different niches, and so different

potentials. These differences we have to manage not only with the same

amount of food or water, but teaching to eat healthier foods (not

transformed by industry, with many of the nutrients, vitamines etc being

dstroyed). We have to manage also population: poor areas with lesser food

and water = lesser population (like in the Saharian or Atacamian-Chile

desertic areas). It is difficult to have a chinese like population in

these areas, also with lower food input need. We have to try to create a

life welfare related to the environmental potential to produce food and

water, and not to try to improve the life standard over their environmental

potential, like in Japan, at expenses of other countries, populations and

environments.

......"And finally, the only way the less is better paradigm can be

sustainable is <if all individuals produce and consume at optimal levels

at the same time> as this is the only venue to eliminate both the

addiction problem and the copycat problem displayed by individuals in

developed countries and in developing countries at the <same time>"........

Yes, this is the big challenge! At the same time in a global form,

exploit the niche potentials by the niche populations, and not under a

robbery process like that conducted today by the G7, with a something

light transfer of energy from the more riches to the more poors, to

establish a more balanced global environmental and social level (consumers

that may consume, and today ar outsiders).

To the less: less certainly did not mean poor. Less I understand to cut

the excess of consume to a normal level, as you pointed out. Today the

economic system try to improve the excess of consume. We have to produce

more and consume more, so that a few people can make money so fast as

possible!!??

Another insight I did have last week is about competition. I know that

competition is a rule in nature, and the most efficient wins. In economy

the goal today is efficiency, competition in a global scale! That is the

problem I see. In nature there is no global competition. There are niche

winners, but not global winners. Global winners are like predators. Be a

predator is very bad. So I think that we cannot allow the establishment

of global winners because they will be predators, destroying all the other

niche winners, resulting in a dark centralized global poverty (also in

rich countries). We need the establishment of variability. Each niche

with its winners. So we can get a global welfare. With a good distribution

of energy. The global accumulation of energy (money) by few global

predators is the destruction of global welfare and life. This is we

have to fight out.

Back to the discussion on sustainability: I did hear that this concept

was born in the Bruntland Conference of the G7. They wanted their

sustainability, their economic sustainability, and not the global

sustainability. And the big problem of this sustainability concept is

that the weight of the social and environmental variable is very very low.

It is so low that the European community begin to thing to enhance the

efforts spent to the economical component, to get competitive with

Americans in world trade. So, my idea remains the same: if we do not

change the goal of sustainability to the social and environmental welfare

(money beeing only a product of this welfare, and the way to enhance

this welfare), remaining to accumulate money in a fool manner (as a fight

among big predators), sustainability will be a joke of the G7!

And I have to add another related idea: when farmers or industry owners

produce to make money, and they have to produce in scale, no landscape

surface will be enough to produce goods: this means that no natural

environments will survive, they will be destroyed to produce cattle and

grains. However, if the goal would be to satisfy life quality of

population, I can say that we have agricultural land and production in

excess, and need not to destroy natural environments. The main problem

remains our life goal: life quality or money accumulation?

So, thing about this ideas, that could help in the development of a

global welfare model.

Lucio, your article is good, but some ideas are something theoretical

and not easy to put in practice. But I think that the ideas are coming

closer to a possible way.

With the best regards,

Odo

August 29/2000/Comment on Diversity, niches and consistency

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:42:44 -0300 (EST)

From: "Odo ….br>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: Diversity, niches, and consistency

 

Hy, Lucio!

Back to your comment local/global, I agree that the ecological knowlegde

need to be forwarded in a global manner, the social wellfare need to

consider a middle standard but the economic component, I think, cannot

work in a global basis of consumerism.

I will read your new article and give eturn later.

With best regards,

Odo

September 1/2000/Comment on the maximization, partial regulation and system dominance article

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:22:26 -0300 (EST)

From: "Odo ..pa.br>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: Article published(ref: Maximization)

 

Good day, Lucio!

I think that now you catched the right local/global way.

..."And the reason is that under true sustainability, there is no

maximization; there is no partial regulation; and there are no

dominated systems"...

..."Hence, the main forces of true sustainability are optimization,

full regulation, and cooperation"....

OK! I think that this is your best global article. Congratulations!

Clear and complete.

Now, how is it possible to improve this proposed model? In a global

formal as you stated? And in a way that all people understand the same

under sustainability, cooperation, environment, social and economical

optimization, etc.

As I stated in a previous email, there is a confused meaning between

economical growth and development, and that development (economical

intensification, more efficiency) without a previous growth (social,

labor opportunities for all) is not sustainable. We need to understand

all our practical situations in a way as the clear formula you did bring.

I think that you may bring all our conflicts in the 3 Americas as

unbalances in the formula D=SEN like D=sEn (USA) x d=sen (Latin America);

ALCA x Mercosul, market individual/colective dominance in and outside

USA, etc. Why the big fire in the amazonian forest is an ecological

catastrophe and the bigger fire in north American forests isn't? Wy the

third world people are not able to manage their own contries, rich

environments and ores, and the G7 are? Why G7 countries dont try to

improve the social, environmental and economical welfare of third world

peoples/countries, and do the opposite? They would create a bigger market

for their products doing the former, but they are only creating a bigger

difference between poor and riches, outside and inside their countries

(is it a result of ... development programs operate are self-interest-based

plans"......?).

I think that you may include development levels in your

sustained/sustainable formula:absent development(?)

(d=ssseeennn), low (D=ssSeeEnnN), medium (D=sSSeEEnNN) and high

(D=SSSEEENNN). Now, how I manage two sustainable neighbor countries

(D=ssSeeEnnN x D=SSSEEENNN), one poorer than the other, but both adapted

to their environmental development potential?

With the best regards,

Odo

August 31/2000/comment related to the WB/WWW Alliance Bulletin

Subject: Re: WB/WWF Alliance Bulletin August 31/00To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>From: Phazelton

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:36:42 -0400

Thanks for this, Lucio..

I am a Canadian/Paraguayan working at the WB for the past 10 years in exactly

the areas you make reference to: conservation and rural poverty alleviation..

Trying to marry the two.. It is not easy and we all bend both the best

conservation and the best poverty alleviation approaches to try to fit these

projects.

Currently I am designing a NR Mgmt. project in the Altiplano of Guatemala in

which the main component is a bottom up demand-driven ag. improvement fund

linked to soil, water, forest conservation and a major GEF component for

biodiversity and agrobiodiversity conservation and protected areas; finally, a

pilot on Environmental Services..

I would be glad to send you an electronic version and receive some comments. But

I would most like to have the paper you refer to in your email on how to link

poverty reduction and conservation..

I have a son in Vancouver and have a finca in the mountains of SW Alberta,

whence I returned yesterday from home leave..We should try to meet sometime..

Suerte..

Hazelton

-----------

From:"Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca> on 09/01/2000 12:28:13 AM

To: <Michaelc…….Agrdon@Worldbank.Org>

cc:

Subject: Re: WB/WWF Alliance Bulletin August 31/00

 

Dear Anita and Friends, I read the Newsletter with a lot of interest. I

am happy to see that the WWF is softenning its approach to development or

widenning it a little more by recognizing the need to start putting

attention to deforested areas. This will give the World Bank a little more

room for adjusting the Forestry Policy to current and expected future

development conditions, specially in developing countries.

As some of you may know, I have made in several ocassions and

discussions the positive point that while the mandate of the world bank was

poverty reduction(a social goal), it focus was more in the

conservation/protection domain(an environmental goal). That the policies of

the world bank were located in the areas where less people live(remaining

forested areas) instead of where most poor people live(existing deforested

areas). In my humble opinion, I suggested that both goals should be pursued

conjucturally to approach as much as possible sustainability conditions.

I am glad to see that the WWF is going to be now open to a new approach

as mentioned in point 3 related to Other Activities. However, while we

allocate some resources to deal with deforested areas issues, we should not

forget that more needs to be done. I would like to point out that, while

this is a big step in the right direccion from my point of view, still it

does not address the need to directly link conservation goals and poverty

reduction. I just wrote an article called : PRESERVATION PLUS, which if

published, will provide another idea on how this direct connection could be

done. Moreover, I also made the comment that perhaps it would

be appropriate soon to create a sort of WORLD POVERTY FUND to take over this

mission from the World Bank so the World Bank can focus on economic

efficiency policies subject to sustainability concerns. If we all agree

that economic has nothing directly to do with poverty(equity issues), we

must agree that eco-economics also has nothing to do directly with

poverty(equity issues), and hence, an external institution could be able to

deal with poverty in a direct manner, locally, and globally.

I like what I read in the newsletter, and I think that it is in line

with what I expect to see in the new World Bank's Forestry Policy.

My warm greetings from Vancouver;

Respectfully yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <Agordon@worldbank.org>

<Munoz@Interchange.Ubc.Ca>; <Mma

Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 5:21 PM

Subject: WB/WWF Alliance Bulletin August 31/00

 

> Friends,

>

> Please find attached the summer edition of the Bulletin. Hope you enjoy

it.

>

> best...

>

> a.

>

> (See attached file: B-Aug31fin.doc)

>

September 5/2000/Comment on article the Different Faces of Development

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 08:52:51 -0300 (EST)From: "Odo ...br>To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>Subject: Re: your article

Good day, Lucio!

I am sad with that what happened, but on the other hand you could know the

knowledge level of the readers. I think that in some cases you have to

introduce your articles with your explanation below.

As I wrote you formerly, it would be clearer with comparative examples on

how to work with this tool. I think that in your last paper I did read you

have done this. Very clear and objective.

With the best regards,

Odo

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear Dr. …., thank you for your e-mail. Yes, you are right I did

> not receive your e-mail in April. But there is also the posibility that it

> may have been due to problems here, I also had computer problems during that

> month. However, thank you very much for contacting me today.

> I read the reviewer's statements carefully. The two main points for

> rejection made are:

> a) One related to quality of english used;

> b) The other related the conceptual framework

>

> I accept that there is grammatical work to be done in this article as it was

> the first draft I wrote, and I was ready to work on it if the decision was

> positive. However, I disagree with the criticism of the terminology used

> and with the criticism of the theoretical framework presented.

>

> Terminology used:

> I have on purpose used non-traditional terminology on this paper and on

> others written and published because I am trying to advance a different view

> on how to deal with the same issues. Something like trying to differenciate

> your academic work from that of others as much as possible. I have used

> that terminology in several forums since 1996, this is the first time I hear

> that it is not appropriate because it is not conventional.

>

> Conceptual Framework

> I stand by the soundness of the theoretical framework used and I claim, as I

> have shown with doomy data, that if this theory can be carefully used, it

> could be made operational. For example, please, see my paper at

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/ART8.htm

> It is clear to me from the comments made that the reviewer is not familiar

> with qualitative comparative theory based on Boolean Algebra and he or she

> is not familiar with the award winning work of Charles Ragin on these issues

> using qualitative comparative analysis. The reviewer looked at my work,

> from an additive thinking point of view instead of a system thinking; he

> looked at multiplicative interactions instead of conjunctural interactions.

> For example, traditionally,

> 1 + 1 = 2; but using boolean algebra 1 + 1 = 1

> Using boolean algebra Ab + aB = 1 because they are the unity if looked as a

> subsystem; and therefore, from the boolean algebra point of view Abc + aBc =

> c + c = c

> Just reviewing the boolean algebra rules in Ragin's work, the negative

> opinion expressed could be changed or soften.

>

> I welcome the criticism

> However, I am very happy to see this rejection and criticism since this is

> the first time it happens, I was getting worry that all my papers are being

> published, but not reaction yet from the readers. This give me an

> indication of what to expect, and I am very confident my ideas will prevail.

> My most recently published paper is called "An Overview of Some of The

> Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market" is based on

> similar theory and was published January/2000 by Environmental Management

> and health/MBC Press. No comments on this yet, neither from traditional

> economists, but I am sure soon it will come once the approaches are explore

> more in detail. To me negative criticism is positive as it prepare me for

> what may be laying ahead. Thank you very much for sharing the reviewer's

> opinion with me.

>

> I will share this work in my webpage

> To assess what other think, I will place this article in my webpage. Hope,

> others will comment so I can benefit from this feedback. I will update my

> home page this coming wednesday.

>

> Thank you for your time and kindness in reviewing my paper, I will send you

> another one very soon. These days the three most recent papers I wrote

> were taken by the Institute of Global Future Research, and apparently, they

> are very impressed by the theoretical clarity, the editor said.

>

> Again, thank you and please let's keep in touch and when you have something

> special in mind, let me know. If I have something writen, I will send it to

> you. I would like to publish at least one paper in Brazil.

>

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

> From: …Rodrigues <

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

> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 9:25 AM

> Subject: your article

>

>

> > Dr. Lucio,

> > I just learned through Dr. Odo Primavesi that you didn't receive my

> e-mail on the destiny of your article submitted to the C de C & T.

> > I'm really sorry for what happened. I sent an e-mail in April, 2000 with

> a review that was not favorable for the publication of the article. As I had

> > problems with my computer at that time, I now understand why you didn't

> > receive my message.

> > I apologize for what happened again and I hope by now the review has

> reached you and I hope you will send us other article for publication. Our review

> > process is rather strict and as the editor can not publish work refused by

> > the reviewers.

> > Sincerely yours,

> >

> > Rodrigues

> > Editor

October 5/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Introductory comment

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

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] What should we focus on to answer the questions put forward by the WB team?

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:48:23 -0700

Dear Friends, my name is Lucio Munoz and I am an independent researcher

based in Vancouver, Canada.

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca

Reading the introduction, it came to my mind that this part of the

conference, may be inadvertidly, is being focused on the consequences of

Bank Policies, not on the bank's nurturing effect on the causes. Learning

about the consequences is important to justify or promote chances in human

behaviour that are more environmentally healthy. However, if we do not

undertand how the bank policies are feeding the causes, no real change can

be expected.

The situation presented in the introduction can be summarized from my point

of view as follows:

a) there is a socio-economic system, there are environmental consequences,

and there are world bank policies;

b) the world bank does not directly leads to environmental consequences;

c) the bank affects the environmental consequences through its interaction

with the socio-economic system;

d) since focus is on the poor and medium income socio-economic systems, the

bank can only affect the environmental consequences resulting from these

socio-economic systems;

e) unless the bank address the socio-economic issues in these poor and

midium income places, environmenal degradation will continue;

f) since the focus of the bank apparently has been in dealing with

preventing environmental consequences without out directly or efficiently

dealing with these socio-economic issues, environmental degradation has

continued;

g) since the bank is focused only on these poor and middle income countries, the environmental consequences resulting from the working of rich socio-economic systems are practically not accounted for, at least through the bank policy.

In conclusion, the discussion appear to be focused or going to be focused on the environmental consequences of working socio-economic systems in poor and middle income countries, not on the causes of these consequences. We all know that unless the roots of the problem are tackle head on, we may have some environmental gains in the short to medium term, but not in the long-term.

The general goal of my comments is to bring to the attention that apparently we are going to be focused on the consequences not the causes of

environmental unsustainability and the Bank's role in them, and that the

benchmark for evaluation are existing or past Bank policies, not the

mismatch world bank/ the socio-economic system of these poor and middle

income countries. Have the policies implemented by the World Bank to deal

with environmental issues consistent with the issues/needs of those poor and middle income socio-economic systems? Are they now? Can they be made in the future, if yes, how or if not, why?. Hence, while in this forum, we should keep this in mind my positive comments above and they may affect the answers to the questions posed by the the WB team.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

October 5/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:05:55 -0400 (EDT)

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

From: espre@e-scape.net (Mermelstein)

Subject: [env-sust] Re: What should we focus on to answer the questions put forward by the WB team?

Dear Colleagues:

My name is Judyth Mermelstein. By vocation, I am a writer, editor and

translator; by a different kind of vocation, I am a citizen of this

world who is deeply concerned about ourapparent inability or

unwillingness to face what environmental sustainability means.

Lucio Munoz has underlined something extremely important about

this forum:

>In conclusion, the discussion appear to be focused or going

>to be focused on the environmental consequences of working

>socio-economic systems in poor and middle income countries,

>not on the causes of these consequences. We all know that

>unless the roots of the problem are tackle head on, we may

>have some environmental gains in the short to medium term,

>but not in the long-term.

I believe this is an accurate assessment. We cannot address

the current and clearly unsustainable approach to using the

world's resources. We cannot address the fundamental social

and economic assumptions which cause the unsustainability by

focusing exclusively on short-term benefits regardless of

long-term losses. We are restricted to considering what

improvements can be made in aid-receiving countries by means

of small changes to World Bank policy.

Having been around during the first phase of this consultation,

other similar forums (such as the one on poverty under

globalization), and multiple discussions of these issues in

the context of electronic mailing lists and other media, I

am afraid this approach is fatally flawed unless it also

includes a willingness to reconsider:

1) whether the World Bank should be funding megaprojects geared

towards altering whole economies to a Western model, and,

2) if so, how it can make such funding contingent on in-depth

environmental assessment and study of social impacts, project

management committed to environmental and social sustainability

of such projects, and systematic re-evaluation of completed projects

to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in one place

after another; and, finally:

3) whether the World Bank's present commitment to the current

western "religion" of reliance on market forces to regulate all

aspects of human life, planetary resources, and social justice

is not also deserving of a similar in-depth environmental

assessment.

Mr. Munoz asks:

>Have the policies implemented by the World Bank to deal

>with environmental issues [been] consistent with the issues/needs of

>those poor and middle income socio-economic systems? Are they now?

>Can they be made in the future, if yes, how or if not, why?

and, no doubt, in trying to answer those questions we will find

ourselves confronting the larger ones at their root.

Sincerely hoping this forum will make a real difference,

Mermelstein

 

October 5/2000/World Bank's Promoting Environmental Sustainability conference

From: Ranji <RGe@aqmd.gov>

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] Zero emission technologies are needed: fuel cells, renewable ene rgy, hydrogen.

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:35:42 -0700

Given the increasing population, the increased prosperity per

capita and the intensive use of energy, it is important for the Bank to

emphasize zero to near-zero-pollution technologies that are renewable and

self-sustaining. Use of Solar, wind, biomass should be the Bank's highest

priority. In addition, the Bank should embark on emphasizing cost-effective

energy-efficient use of technologies to cut down the per capita demand for

energy (compact bulbs versus standard bulbs, window glazing to provide

shade, etc.) Finally, the Bank should consider seriously moving into an

hydrogen economy. Oil and natural gas are fossil fuels. Over 65% of both

oil and natural gas reserves are in the Middle East and Soviet Union. Many

poor countries are near bankruptcy trying to import these resources. In

contrast, hydrogen can be ultimately obtained from the ocean waters, has

shown to be considerably safe if safety protocols are instituted, is zero

polluting, has minimal greenhouse gases emissions, and does not degrade

water resources.

Most countries near water resources (ocean, rivers,

lakes, etc.) can potentially declare themselves energy independent. If used

in hydrogen engines or fuel cells (in the future), the exhaust is water -

thereby making it an inexhaustible fuel supply source. The Bank can

cosponsor projects encouraging the development of hydrogen internal

combustion engines, while we await fuel cells to become more affordable.

Since hydrogen offers the greatest emission reduction and highest fuel

efficiency, once fuel cells become affordable, it is possible likely that a

hydrogen economy may take-off on its own. Iceland is experimenting with

it, and I hope other countries seriously examine it. India, for example, is

expected to spend several billions building petroleum refineries. This

could potentially inflict grave environmental damage. I urge the Bank to

discourage this development, and instead urge the Indian government to

leapfrog to the modern ultraclean technologies such as hydrogen.

Background. I am a program supervisor at the key air quality agency in

Southern California. The primary focus of the division I work in

(Technology Advancement Office) is to identify and advance technologies to

clean urban air pollution

(The views expressed herein are those of the author's alone, and not

necessarily those of the air district).

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

Ranji S. George

Program Supervisor

October 5/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:20:34 -0400

Subject: [env-sust] Zero emission technologies are needed including renewable energy, hydrogen and fuel cells

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

From: RGeorge

Leapfrog into new technology. Allow me to first congratulate the Bank in

creating a forum to collect opinions. Hopefully, the Bank will include

some of the proposals it obtains. It may not be able to change the world

overnight, but at the very least, it can provide direct environmentally

leadership on the megaprojects it funds. A friend of mine observed that

in an East European country, the people are using cell phones in large

numbers - that the country has leapfrogged into the new technology by

bypassing the old, expensive technology of putting lot of cables in the

ground. So to with the Bank. It can encourage developing countries to

leapfrog into new environmentally sustainable technologies, and avoid the

old, environmentally damaging, traditional route of economic development -

which the West has experienced.

Zero emission technologies. Given the increasing population, the

increased prosperity per capita and the intensive use of energy, it is

important for the Bank to emphasize zero to near-zero-pollution

technologies that are renewable and self-sustaining. Use of solar, wind,

biomass should be the Bank's highest priority. In addition, the Bank

should embark on emphasizing cost-effective energy-efficient use of

technologies to cut down the per capita demand for energy (compact bulbs

versus standard bulbs, window glazing to provide shade, etc.) Finally,

the Bank should consider seriously moving into an hydrogen economy. Oil

and natural gas are fossil fuels. Over 65% of both oil and natural gas

reserves are in the Middle East and Soviet Union. Many poor countries are

near bankruptcy trying to import these resources. In contrast, hydrogen

can be ultimately obtained from the ocean waters, has shown to be

considerably safe if safety protocols are followed, is zero polluting, has

minimal greenhouse gases emissions, and does not degrade water resources.

The bulk of the world is near some form of water(ocean, rivers, lakes,

etc.) These countries can potentially declare themselves energy

independent. If used in hydrogen engines or fuel cells (in the future),

the exhaust is water - thereby making water an inexhaustible fuel supply

source. The Bank can cosponsor projects encouraging the development of

hydrogen internal combustion engines, while we await fuel cells to become

more affordable. Since hydrogen offers the greatest emission reduction

and highest fuel efficiency, once fuel cells become affordable, it is

possible likely that a hydrogen economy may take-off on its own.

Iceland is experimenting with it, and I hope other countries seriously

examine it. India, for example, is expected to spend several billions

building petroleum refineries. This could potentially inflict grave

environmental damage. Since it also assures complete dependency on

imported oil, the Bank should discourage this development. Instead it

should urge the Indian government to leapfrog to the modern ultraclean

technologies such as hydrogen. So too with other countries in the Orient,

Africa and Latin America - countries with very limited oil and natural gas

resources.

Background. I am a program supervisor at the key air quality agency in

Southern California. The primary focus of the division I work in

(Technology Advancement Office) is to identify and advance technologies to

clean urban air pollution. I have over ten years of experience in clean

fuels and clean technologies. My area of focus is zero-emission

technologies. The advantage of zero-emission technologies (such as fuel

cells, renewable energy, etc.) is that no matter how sizable the

population becomes, and how intensively energy is utilized, pollution

remains near-zero. This contrasts with low polluting technologies (like

gasoline hybrids) in that their higher use may offset the low polluting

nature of the technology. For example, over a decade, California has

reduced the tailpipe emissions from its gasoline automobiles by 90

percent. Air pollution benefits have been important, however, these gains

have been offset by increased population, increased cars per household

family and the intensive use of each household car - a trend visible

across the globe.

(The views expressed herein are those of the author's alone, and not

necessarily those of the air district).

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

Ranji S. George

Program Supervisor

October 6/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference/Comment

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

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Ranji George >"

Subject: [env-sust] Re: Zero emission technologies are needed: fuel cells, renewable ene rgy, hydrogen.

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:09:51 -0700

Dear Friends, I agree that a closed to zero environmental pollution

producing economy would be better than the free to produce environmental

externality economy that we had(or may still have depending on where we

live); but an environmentally clean economy may still lead; and may even

exacerbate, social externalities. Why not to recommend the bank the pursue

of two policies at the same time, the erradication of social and

environmental extenalities. These aims could lead to research on how to

achieve the goals of environmental stakeholders in a way that leads to the

erradication of social externalities. Without creating a sustainable demand

in these poor to middle income countries we are concerned with in this

forum, no clean technology will be attactive as basic needs may not include

zero polluting choices. Without a sustainable demand, there is not room for

a sustainable supply. Why not to seriously start thinking about

implementing a system view of development now that apparently we still have

time?. A socially responsible clean economy should be our dream as

something like that would approach sustainability. However, just cleaning

the economy may not be helpful in the long-term.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Independent Researcher

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

 

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

From: Ranji George

To: Promoting Environmental Sustainability <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 1:35 PM

Subject: [env-sust] Zero emission technologies are needed: fuel cells,

renewable ene rgy, hydrogen.

 

> Given the increasing population, the increased prosperity per

> capita and the intensive use of energy, it is important for the Bank to

> emphasize zero to near-zero-pollution technologies that are renewable and

> self-sustaining. Use of Solar, wind, biomass should be the Bank's highest

> priority.

October 6/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Reply

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:18:44 -0400

Subject: [env-sust] Leapfrogging economic development using latest technology

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

From: RGeorge@

With regards to my comment on leapfrogging, Mr. Munoz raised a valid

concern. I wish, however, he had included some examples to illustrate this

concern. Even though there is a danger of increasing inequality, I believe

there is even greater danger of sustaining current inequalities by relying

on traditional technologies to jumpstart development. For example, current

energy technologies heavily rely on gasoline and diesel. Except for

handful of countries, almost all others have to import these. Relying on

gasoline and diesel for development will perpetuate such dependence.

Moving towards natural gas will help in cleaning the air, but not reducing

this dependency since most proven natural gas resources are still in the

OPEC region. It is essential to move towards renewables such as solar,

wind, biomass, biogas, etc. for ensuring energy independence. Resources

currently diverted to import petroleum can be now used within the

countries. More examples of leapfrogging: In Australia, an educational

experiment is being conducted using satellite TV to reach out to remote

Aborigines with messages on improved farming, health, education and job

opportunities. Recently, CNN showed a video in which a remote South

African village is using solar photovoltaic panels to power computers and

the Internet to teach young students.

In summary, the power of new technologies can be summoned to reach large

sections of the masses which till now had very little hope.

Unfortunately, despite good intentions, much of the Bank funds are

squandered in bureaucracy and a good portion lands up in Swiss bank

accounts, while the rest of the population shoulders the debt in

perpetuity. (Not sure what the Bank is doing to demand more

accountability of its funds). If accountability can be maintained, local

technology entrepreneurs can be called upon to light new hope.

Sincerely, RG.

October 5/2000/Message from Mr. Hibbs

Subject: Global Learn Day IV

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:16:52 -0700

From: John Hibbs <hibbs@bfranklin.edu>

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

This mailing is to all those in my address book. Your name is there

because you either had something awfully intelligent to say; or were

doing something very novel. Or, more likely, both. The common threads

among all of you are innovation, energy, brainpower and heart.

Those are the same threads that bind a patchwork quilt we call Global

Learn Day.

Across my desk came a great story which I have saved to share with you on

the eve of what we think is a pretty extraordinary endeavor. The story is

uploaded at<http://38.214.205.100:8080/ramgen/227.ra>. You can also reach

it by visiting our new home page <http://www.bfranklin.edu>.

The good news is the story tells a whole lot about each and all of you.

And the challenges you face in a world reluctant to change.

The bad news it takes four minutes and real audio to hear it.

More bad news is our countdown clock

<http://www.bfranklin.edu/countdown.html> - It's a clock which

continues to tick off the hours, minutes and seconds until launch. As I

write, that clock tells me there is less than 1 day and 20 hours before

Arun Mehta and Sir John Daniel give us their bon voyage salute.

Story telling is fun, but I have to run. We have a big ship to take

around the world this weekend, and there is still a lot of work to do.

John Hibbs

The Captain

Global Learn Day

P.S. If you don't can't hear the story, but would like the text of it,

please reply here. It's worth framing. I just wish I could tell it

better.

October 9/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Message from Mr. Gray

From: KEVIN GRAY <>

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

Subject: RE: [env-sust] What should we focus on to answer the questions pu

t forward by the WB team?

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:54:57 +0100

Dear Lucio,

I recently read your comments in the World Bank forum. I agree with many of

them including the need to mainstream environmental concerns into

socio-economic decision making. I was curious to hear about the independent

research you do at UBC. I am a Canadian and a fellow independent

consultant. Most of my work is in environment, trade and development, with

a policy/law focus.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Kevin R. Gray

International Environmental and Trade Law Consultant

London, UK

 

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

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

Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 7:48 PM

To: Promoting Environmental Sustainability

Subject: [env-sust] What should we focus on to answer the questions put

forward by the WB team?

 

Dear Friends, my name is Lucio Munoz and I am an independent researcher

based in Vancouver, Canada.

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca

Reading the introduction, it came to my mind that this part of the

conference, may be inadvertidly, is being focused on the consequences of

Bank Policies, not on the bank's nurturing effect on the causes. Learning

about the consequences is important to justify or promote chances in human

behaviour that are more environmentally healthy. However, if we do not

undertand how the bank policies are feeding the causes, no real change can

be expected.

The situation presented in the introduction can be summarized from my point

of view as follows:

a) there is a socio-economic system, there are environmental consequences,

and there are world bank policies;

b) the world bank does not directly leads to environmental consequences;

c) the bank affects the environmental consequences through its interaction

with the socio-economic system;

d) since focus is on the poor and medium income socio-economic systems, the

bank can only affect the environmental consequences resulting from these

socio-economic systems;

e) unless the bank address the socio-economic issues in these poor and

midium income places, environmenal degradation will continue;

f) since the focus of the bank apparently has been in dealing with

preventing environmental consequences without out directly or efficiently

dealing with these socio-economic issues, environmental degradation has

continued;

g) since the bank is focused only on these poor and middle income countries,

the environmental consequences resulting from the working of rich

socio-economic systems are practically not accounted for, at least through

the bank policy.

In conclusion, the discussion appear to be focused or going to be focused on

the environmental consequences of working socio-economic systems in poor and

middle income countries, not on the causes of these consequences. We all

know that unless the roots of the problem are tackle head on, we may have

some environmental gains in the short to medium term, but not in the

long-term.

The general goal of my comments is to bring to the attention that apparently

we are going to be focused on the consequences not the causes of

environmental unsustainability and the Bank's role in them, and that the

benchmark for evaluation are existing or past Bank policies, not the

mismatch world bank/ the socio-economic system of these poor and middle

income countries. Have the policies implemented by the World Bank to deal

with environmental issues consistent with the issues/needs of those poor and

middle income socio-economic systems? Are they now? Can they be made in the

future, if yes, how or if not, why?. Hence, while in this forum, we should

keep this in mind my positive comments above and they may affect the answers

to the questions posed by the the WB team.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

October 7/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: the world bank and economic rationalism

From: Kala Saravanamuthu

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] World Bank and economic rationalism

Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 23:10:38 +0930

Initial responses by Munoz and Mermelstein to the public forum on the

Interim report highlight the need to address the 'real' causes of

socio-economic inequity and its impact on the environment. The present

system of evaluation continues to tinker with the effects of the structural

inconsistency between World Bank environmental policies and the

socio-economic needs of poor and middle income nations. Later responses to

the forum turn to advances in technology to provide a way out of this

dilemma - which is problematic in its own right.

I suggest that we step back from the detail and try to understand how the

activities of the World Bank (WB) fit into the larger canvas of the global

economic rationalism. The WB does not operate in isolation from the rest of

the world - regardless of this particular forum on its activities in the

less advanced nations. I will put forward a perspective which attempts to

explain and contextualise the findings of the Interim Report on the WB's

projects - before seeking 'solutions'.

Two pertinent issues emerge. Firstly, projects cannot be labelled as having

just one impact - social, environmental or economic. All three dimensions

are significant and interrelated. This is evident the first preliminary

finding on the relevance of WB's policies and procedures. "Many NGOs and

other stakeholders argue that the Bank has attempted to tackle environmental

sustainability without fully incorporating the social dimension and, as a

result, does not address the fundamental issues of sustainable development.

The short time horizon (of one to five years) the Bank adopts in its Country

Assistance Strategies and adjustment programs often conflicts with the

longer time horizon (of 10 to 20 years) required to address environmental

problems."(Operations Evaluation Department - OED, 2000, p.iv). This has

resulted in a WB focus on "short- and medium-term impacts of projects with

consequent neglect of the long-term and indirect impacts that have a bearing

on sustainability" (p.v).

The interrelatedness of social activities lead me to the second issue - the

effect of globalisation. Despite the fact that the project funding

assessment is restricted to low and middle income nations, it does not mean

that the results of these projects are isolated from requirements of global

capital. In this sense, what happens in the rest of the world influences

the socio-economic outcome of WB projects. While the OED report recongnises

the global connection and finds that "The WB's financial commitments to the

global environment ....have been critical to mobilizing funds, promoting

technology transfer, catalyzing private sector resources, and strengthening

partnerships.....However,....the Bank has not done as much in its regular

portfolio of projects in the biodiversity and climate change areas to put

global environment concerns on a par with traditional Bank business. This

is to some extent due to the fact that the Bank's promotion of global

objectives is constrained by the commitment and willingness of its client

countries to accept these objectives" (p.v).

 

What is the implication of this in assessing the WB's performance? I

believe that it means that we have to first acknowledge the politics behind

these manifestations of inequality - which is driven by the narrow economic

growth agenda. Civil society, business and the state are interconnected to

each other by the overlapping roles of capital and labour - as citizens of

the world, we are capital, and we are labor at the same time. We are

capital when we seek the highest returns from our lifesavings and

investments, and we are labour when we are dependent on another to enable us

to earn a living. Taken in this context, the short termism evident in the

WB policies, that sit uncomfortably with the longer term soico-environmental

needs, are the outcome of the mentality that says - "let's slow down growth

out there and save ecology for the greater good, but not in my backyard".

Where from here? I believe it is to first and foremost change our

collective view of what 'success' or 'growth' means. It means opening it

beyond the narrow economic perspective, and according equal status to social

and environmental needs. It begins with how we account for performance -

because the evaluation measures encapsulate taken-for-granted world views of

development. Just because the present method of accounting for performance

treats social and environmental degradation as invisible items that do not

impinge on profits, it does not mean that it does not exist. Looking to

advances in technology to provide answers, provides a solution to immediate

needs, but it does not address the fundamental contradiction that we have

created in a world of economic rationalism - by pursuing the god of growth,

we destroy more than we create.

Perhaps the capital market appears to have started the ball rolling -

whatever its motivation. The Dow Jones Group Sustainability Index - which

is in its first year of operation - attempts to weight economic, social and

environmental needs on equal footing. Put simply, it bites the bullet by

promoting long term growth, instead of quick economic returns. I suspect,

however, the means of achieving this Index is subject to the same assessment

flaws as the WB evaluation system - reliance on (politically) skewed norms

of yester-year to bring about changes in the new millennium. But

acknowledging the political nature of our socio-environmental problems, and

the centrality of economic relations, is an important first step to changing

our collective performance expectations of corporations, the state and its

institutions.

Cordially.

Kala

Kala Saravanamuthu PhD.,

School of Accounting & Information Systems,

October 11/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: reply from Mr. Gray

From: KEVIN GRAY

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

Subject: RE: [env-sust] What should we focus on to answer the questions pu

t forward by the WB team?

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:56:26 +0100

Dear Lucio,

Many thanks for your email. Your website and ideas sound great. Using the

web to disseminate information is invaluable. I wish I had the initiative,

and the time, to do it for myself.

For consulting, there is no easy way ... just get your name out. Try to

promote yourself. Use your contacts. Talk to people. Go to conferences.

Write a lot as it can generate some interest in your work. I guess this is

pretty formulaic stuff but it might help.

Looking forward to meeting you some day.

Kind regards,

October 11/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Sustainability view from mr. Kashyanov

Subject: [env-sust] Response to Moderator Questions

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "P.V.Kasyanov" <>

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:14:56 -0400

[Moderator's note: Some list members may not have received the following

message]

Dear friends and colleagues,

Thank you very much for a posssibility to express my opinion.

I am Pavel Kasyanov (Moscow) and for several years I've been working for

the World Bank project on the environmental management in a broad sense

(of course, in Russia) as an environmental and natural resource economist

and expert in environmental management. However, I'll try not to be biased

even if I am risking to some extent. Unfortunately I am not very familiar

with the Bank's projects in other countries. So, my position is mostly

based on my own experience.

My message consists of 2 different parts: first one tries to answer

the moderators question. The second one is intended to present

deeper theoretical and philosophical insight (I will send a detailed

version of my paper to whoever might be interested.) This part is

continuing discussion started by contributions of Judyth Mermelstein,

Lucio Munoz, Kala Saravanamuthu and other participants.

1. As our moderators stated focus of the discussions here is on "Promoting

Environmental Sustainability: An Evaluation of the Bank's Performance."

We are suggested to answer the following questions:

* How relevant are Bank policies and procedures?

* How well did the Bank implement its environmental policies?

* How effectively has the Bank mainstreamed environment in its country

and sector policies?

* What were the institutional strengthening, policy reform and project

impacts of Bank's interventions?

* How effective has the Bank been in addressing global concerns?

* How do stakeholders view the Bank performance?

Almost every question can be answered from different visual angles.

It is very serious and labor consuming analytical work to answer every

separate question. So, now I 'll try to display just an integrated

impression but from different points of view.

First, our project (and some adjacent ones) is useful and efficient in an

absolute dimension because it produces some unique production that

in case of absence of such projects would probably not be produced.

The situation in Russia (in 90s) didn't give a possibility to directly

allocate budgetary money for environmental and natural resource management

purposes as well as for science and education (and many other socially

important purposes). Projects like ours are financed through loans and

since they are additional burden on the budget.(Of course, there are

projects carried out at the expense of GRANTS).

So, the situation is paradoxical because by means of loan it's possible

to allocate budgetary money for measures on the environmental protection

management while directly it is impossible (Financing directly from the

budget is too low to produce qualitative documents: strategic, planning,

methodological, legislative etc).

So, in this case the WB project to some extent substitutes weak by

different reasons: financial, institutional, political and other) state

managerial functions and allow to attract the most qualified domestic

personnel while, of course the major part of finances goes to foreign

consulting firms. (And this latter point is an object for severe

criticism from many individuals occupying different positions including

those working in the State Parliament - Duma and even from some state or NG

organisations/institutions. It's a rather serious problem in fact).

Other important factor is that within frames of our project we were able

to overcome to some extent departmental structure of natural resource and

environmental management state bodies.

However, my first argument is that such projects are useful, although

it's hardly possible to give a concrete money measurement of the project

efficiency.

On the other hand projects could be much more efficient in principle.

What are the factors decreasing their efficiency ?

To my understanding in countries like Russia (and other former Soviet

Union republics) major factors are predetermined by the situation in

the country. I mean the whole situation including political,

economical, social, financial and other aspects.

In our case the situation was and still is unfavorable for smooth

and fast putting in practice environmental policy measures

elaborated during the project. The more important proposed measure,

document the less expectation on its adoption. However, even if

some document is not adopted immediately it doesn't mean that it is

useless and will not be adopted in future. When this project was designed

there were no stratigic and planning documents to coordinate the project

with appropriate items of the documents although importance of every

general and concrete subproject was every time confirmed by the state

bodies and their representatives. In principle the project was flexible

enaugh to address any concrete topical issues but within general frames

fixed in the initial Staff appraisal Report. When there are adopted or at

least approved National Strategy of transition to Sustainable Development,

National Concept of Environmental Policy and NEAP (all of them were

developed in Russia with active participation of our Project) it is easier

to ground any future projects, activities if they are in line with

some parts of the above documents.

General proposal or advice (apart from following national strategic

documents and programs) could be : at the initial stage of project

designing to involve in the process not only representatives of the

executive state bodies but also from Parliament and a part of

administrative observation and board to establish a kind of scientific

panel/council of the most prominent scientists in an appropriate

area including (if it's possible) representatives of the WB Institute. The

latter should be created at the initial stage of designing to help to

formulate the idea, purposes and ways of their achieving.

Also I suppose that the better option would be to concentrate efforts

and money in frames of one project on achieving several concrete goals

than to disperse among a greate number of directions and activities. If

not - project is very difficult for managing and even for keeping

in mind all very different activities.

So, my second point (in the first part of my comments) is that there are

many ways to increase effectiveness of the WB projects , however, major

responsibility for success or failures is on the country where project is

implemented.

Now, after very practical issues, I think it's time to move to more

global and theoretical ones.

If WB wants to reach real success in a global scale to my

understanding it's necessary to elaborate a special INFORMATION POLICY

and STRATEGY, because Global Environmental problem is not a

problem of pollution, wastes, animal and plant worlds degradation etc. --

it is a problem of people's mind, consciousness and subconscious.

And all attempts to prevent Global environmental catastrophe only

by means of technical, economic, legislative and political measures

without deep changes in our world outlook, without coming to perception

of ourselves as a component of Nature, to new understanding of a sense

of human life.

The Information Policy should address, first of all, educational

programs for different audiences, special TV and Radio programs and

channels accessible for everybody (or at least - for overwhelming

majority), WEB -sites, International and national programs of

transition to new mode of education, technical tools of effective

dissemination of the information, co-ordination of activity with

representaives of different religions. Of course, the first task is to

generate an ssential part of the Information strategy and educational

program.

>From my side I can recommend a number of (prominent in my view) Russian

thinkers. Irrespective of the WB reaction I would suggest to my colleagues

to think about this proposal and may be to discuss it. And probably you

can recommend thinkers from India, China, Tibet, America or any other

places...

Let me please to make a quotation from one of my articles (I apologize

for my English which could be sometimes not very clear and good) :

"I consider Environmental problem at large to be a direct result of

resource misallocation under the deficient (inadequate) social demand

structure conditions. And further the resource misallocation results from

non-internalizing externalities. However, internalization of externalities

does not completely guarantee solution or prevention of environmental

problems. A society should attain a certain level of environmental and

spiritual needs and, consequently, an appropriate social demand structure.

Internalization of externalities will be achieved when economic values of

natural resources meet the conditions of Sustainable Development, i.e.

economic development without any non-assimilated negative impact on

Environment. The level of such impact may be described as a set of

environmental standards.It is reasonable to assume that environmental

standards reflect objective social environmental needs and demand."

Environmental needs of a society are reflected in the system of environ-

mental standards set by appropriate state and cross-state bodies.

Environmental standards supplemented with appropriate policies in the

field of nature use, legal and economic instruments, state and

international programs acquire the nature of social demand. Environmental

demand can be described as a system of environmental standards supported

by a set of methods, instruments and resources (economic, financial,

legal, institutional) to achieve them. While resources assigned by a

society are inadequate to the objectives of environmental solutions it is

possible to conclude that social environmental needs are underdeveloped

and a social need structure is not adequate. So, the notion of

environmental needs allows to define "sustainable development" more

precisely, i.e. as the development of a society that meets needs of

current and future generations by generating a rational social need

structure.

It would be very interesting for me to know your opinion about my thoughts.

Thank you for your patience.

Best regards,

P.V.Kasyanov

October 12/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Comments from Mr. Kasyanov

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:42:37 +0300

From: "P.V.Kasyanov"

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

Subject: Re[2]: [env-sust] Response to Moderator Questions

Dear Mr. Munoz, Thank you very much !

{ "Dear Mr. Kasaynov, I found your comments very interesting."}

"And I see that your views on sustainable development are inconsistent with the

views of the world bank of sustainable development as they define it as

environmentally sustainable development, not as socially sustainable environmenal

development as you suggest."

I understand your point but I would suggest to avoid such sharp word as

"inconsistent".

The views (WB’s and my modest one) you compared are different now, however they

could become compatible one day.

Your position, as views of Mrs. Judyth Mermelstein, Dr. Kala Saravanamuthu and

many other people, as well as my ideas are different from WB position reflected in

its projects and policy. Also our views themselves differ to some extent.

Our ideas may have chance to change the WB views and policies in future but also

may not change them or at least … change in "right direction".

By the way, I would thank once again the Operations Evaluation Department (OED)

of the WB for a possibility to discuss all these issues.

"The banks definition does not include yet those

social externalities you believe are very important to consider".

Yes, but this point is not the major one …which is probably that

the main root cause of the global environmental threat is a

disbalance between so called "material" and "spiritual" needs generated and

maintained by primitive human consciousness which predetermines social needs and

demand structure. Other important point is that information resources

serve for allocation of all other resources, so, if we want to change streams of

"material" or other goods (their character, assortment, range, quantity, quality

(including the major feature: what need it should meet)) one should do it through

affecting consciousness by certain information. (And all of us know this at least

through advertising which is usually very primitive but they have very simple ,

primitive goals). In general "information field" of the planet is very destructive

for our consciousness and subconscious and our aggressive attitude and behaviour

to Nature, society, other nations and religions, races, parties, soccer teams

people etc is a function of this state of consciousness and subconscious.

I think our planet looks like, for instance, a bus with crazy or drunk driver

and passengers which drives faster and faster and nobody looks forward or even

outside to try to understand what’s happen.

The way I see is bringing together religion and science and as far as I know

science now is creating the picture of the Universe which is very close to

religious view (of course, religions differ to a large extent but science may be

able to identify which religious views are more adequate and which ones are not).

The following part of your message:

" From my point of view, some aspects that make it difficult to evaluate

the banks performance in environmenal matters as requested in the 6

questions provided are the following:

a) Before 1987 when the WCED report our common future was published all bank policies,

forestry policies or not where not sujected to include any type of

externalities(social or environmental);

b) after 1987, the world bank started moving toward a more environmenally

friendly economic development path, but the goal still remaind economic

development for a while(mostly environmental regulation was included);

c) when the world bank adopted the partnership approach with the biggest

NGOs on earth, then the goal of the bank became purely eco-economic

development(both environmental incentives and regulation were included)."

demonstrates obvious evolution of the WB policy and gives us a hope for further

evolution .

" If we assume a static world, then the above suggest, that analysing the

impacts of bank policies during the periods "a" and "b" is not relevant to

our current discusion as there were no clear environmental aims. Only

analysing the period "c" appears to be, but to me that is a period so short

that we should not expect to draw some miningful conclusions yet."

Unfortunately my own experience is even more limited as I stated earlier.

However, I suppose some! meaningful conclusions could be done.

" If we assume a dynamic world, then I would argue that the cummulative

effects of the world bank policies before 1987 have been so strong that all

the good effords made after that have been cancelled out, and may continue

to be cancelled out for some time to come."

I think we are asked to analyze "the good efforts made after" 1987.

Thank you for your interested participation,

Best regards,

P.V.Kasyanov

October 12/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Comments from Mr. Kasyanov

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:49:04 +0300

From: "P.V.Kasyanov"

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

Subject: Re[4]: [env-sust] Response to Moderator Questions /thanks for message

Dear Mr. Munoz, Thank you very much for your kind invitation!

I certainly visit your site but not today because it's already too late

in Moscow.

Best regards,

P.V.Kasyanov

October 12/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: comment from Mr. Pascoe

From: "Thomas E. Pascoe"

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: env-sus

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:39:46 +0300

It is not the rich and not the poor. It is an unchanged sociology since we

left the caves. Where is action?

Thomas

October 13/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: The Report

From: "Desta Mebratu"

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] 'The report'

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:23:54 GMT

Greetings,

This is Desta Mebratu from Ethiopia. I am working in the field of industrial

development and environmental management. It is good to be back on the

discussion forum. Even if I have many fundamental issues I would like to

reflect upon, I will restrict my input to the focus of the discussion as was

requested by the moderators.

I have browsed through the interim report and I am encouraged by the effort

made to learn from the weakness of WB operation in terms of its

'environmental' sustainability. I would like to share the following as a

reflection on the inetrim report and by way of responding to the questions

posed by the moderators.

On the issue of effctiveness of WB policies and procedures

As much as we criticize the WB for not being effective in terms of promoting

environmental condierations in its operations, the WB is being criticized by

its client states from the developing world for 'bullying-them'into

accepting environmental conditionalities that are not of immediate

priorities to them. I think this is to a large extent related to the

'prescrptive' approach that have been adopted by the WB environmental

programs. Even the EIAs, as a process, have the tendency of being

prescriptive. What we need is a shift to more 'tool-box' oriented

approaches. Similar projects in different country may require employing

different combination of tools. Such an approach helps to contextualize the

whole process and the subsequent interventions to local conditions and

realities. Of course, such an approach will require a different (perhaps

more complicated) set of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Neverthless,

I believe that the ease of minitoring and evaluation should not define the

nature of the process and thereby distort the objectives. Rather, the

development objective should define the process and the monitoring and

evaluation.

On the issue of mainstreaming

I understand that this is the core element of the bank's environmental

policy and has been the principal focus of the interim report. As it was

rightly indicated in the report project-focussed interventions are far from

being sufficient to fulfil the mainstreaming objective. I believe the WB has

much more work to do in developing the necessary tools to facilitate the

integration of environmental considerations in development policy and

planning at the macro level. One essential tool for this could be the

promotion of the combined application of EIA and 'Strategic Environmental

Assessment' (SEA). This requires clarifying some of the confusions around

the similarities and differences between these tools and further develop the

modalities of their combined application of these and other strtaegic

planning tools to be developed.

On the issue of internal inertia

It is true that the WB is making some effort to reorient its policies and

operation in response to the multi-dimensional global challenge. I think,

one of the greatest challenge to this process is coming from the internal

inertia within the EB. This is true for its activity in the field of

environmental sustainability too. Just to cite an example, there is an

increasing evidence (inclduing WB's experience) that shows that an

integrated industrial pollution prevention approach makes significant

controbution towards improving the economic and environmental performance of

industries in developing countries. But the WB still continue to issue

documents and reports that give more emphasis to pollution control

strataegies that are based on the introduction of (add-on) end-of-pipe

management technologies. This shows that addressing the in-house inertia

factors has to be one component of the strategy to be developed.

I believe that the above three points cut-across through the thematic focus

of the evaluation process and the interim report.

Regards

Desta

October 13/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Social sustainability and environmental sustainability

From: "Taufiq Alimi"

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] Fw: social sustainability and environmental sustainability

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:05:32 +0700

 

>Dear Mr. Munoz and others...

>I am Taufiq Alimi, academic director of LEAD Indonesia, and am very

>interested in the discussion between Mr. Munoz and Mr. Kasyanov. This

>ignites a thought in my mind about the issue of social sustainability.

>Although, as moderator has restated in the "message from the moderator",

the

>focus of the discussions is "promoting Environmental Sustainability", I

>still believe that the objective of development is to improve the life

>quality of human being. This implies that any human being wherever and

>wheneve they live should have a fair chances to improve their live. To

>sustain the life of human being we need the sustainability of our

>environment.

>Following this line of thought, we see that environment sustainability is

>not more important than the sustainability of human being. The

>sustainibility of peace, sense of place of every person in their own

>cultural niche, and a well being, is what development should up to. And for

>doing so, we need a sustainable environment.

>Observing the world bank policy, such line of thought is not easy to find.

>The main objective of the World Bank, like any other bank, is to toy around

>with money pulling from here and push to there. Not that bad though, since

>the World Bank is also (able to) direct the global development--mainly in

>developing countries--to certain point. It is respectable that the Bank has

>started to find the right direction by including the

>anthropological/cultural aspect of development, as well as ecological

>aspect. However, the main pushing factor of the Bank lending is seemingly

>still economic growth. It is understandable since that is the only easy to

>measure indicator. Ones should provide the Bank with other easier to

measure

>indicators in development of economy (I am referring the difference in

>growth and development to the Daly's in his "For the Common Good").

>Involvement of people (more participatory approach) in development and

>incorporation of environmental cost is indeed a very good improvement of

the

>Bank. Yet, it will be a lot better if various "prescriptions" offered by

the

>Bank in developing a country is aimed at the development of human being. As

>it happens in Indonesia, after the crises unravelled the economy, the IMF

>came and offer prescription under the umbrella of structural adjustment.

The

>adjustment targets the collapsed banking system, promotes the recovery of

>industrial sector, enhances the small and medium enterprise etc. None of it

>touches the destructing distrust that spreaded over the citizens. I am

aware

>that this may not be the responsibility of the Bank, and it is unfair to

ask

>the Bank to touch upon such issue. But, I think Bank should at least find

>other agency that will take care of that problem. Otherwise the adjustment

>and money for it will be spent for nothing. All efforts will meet failure

if

>the social sustainability is not secured first.

>Thanks and again thanks to the Bank and the OED for organizing this

fruitful

>discussion.

>Best Regards

>

>Taufiq Alimi

>Academic Director

>Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD)

>Indonesia

October 14/2000/Message from Mr. Reyes

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:10:46 -0500 (CDT)

From: Reyes….com.mx>

Subject: respuesta

To: munoz@unixg.ubc.ca

Con respecto al escrito dado en el grupo de

discusion, yo le pregumtaria si cree que el

ser humano es un animal social y piensa que

puede estar aislado sin tener imagenes de sus

similares, vivir siendo el solo sin tener en

cuenta a otros humanos.

Espero su respuesta.

October 16/2000/Message from Mr. Reyes: Reply

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:15:41 -0500 (CDT)

From: Reyes….com.mx>

Subject: Re: respuesta

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

TE DOY LAS GRACIAS POR TU RESPUESTA, Y

DISCULPA QUE LA PREGUNTA NO TENIA NADA QUE VER

CON TU PREGUNTA, PERO EN VERDAD, ESA RESPUESTA

NOS SIRVIO DE MUCHO PARA REALIZAR LA TAREA.

GRACIAS...

ATTE: FRANCISCO JAVIER SANCHEZ REYES Y TODO EL

EQUIPO DE LA CLASE DE INFORMATICA

October 17/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Open discourse or closed discourse

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

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Taufiq Alimi"

Subject: [env-sust] Open Discourse or Closed Discourse

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:47:28 -0700

Dear Friends, there are at least two ways to approach development discourse:

Open Discourse which to me means honest discourse; and closed discourse,

which to me means selective silence. I prefer open discourse, and the

promise of open discourse keeps bringing me and my time into this discusion.

However, we should not just criticize, but offer possible ways out, at least

in theory to the points we make. As Mr. Alimi from Indonesia points out, we

should find ways to bring social sustainality to the front of our

development concerns, and please see my points below. I make my usual

positive comments and my views on possible ways out.

 

THE REPORT

As I mentioned in my first posting, I got the feeling that this forum

was going to be focused on the consequences only, which by definition is not

sustainability move, and provides the grounds to see the mismatches and

matches bank policies-causes and bank policies-consequences to me easier.

I see the following mismatches in the report:

a) priority is given to environmental goals while social goals appear to be

the priority in poor and middle income countries, violating the consistency

principle of sustainability;

b) policy prescription appears to be the norm, not participation, violating

the inclusion principle of sustainability,

c) monitoring of environmental issues is enphasised, not of social issues,

violating the integration principle of sustainability;

d) maintreaming the environment is the key, not of social sustainability,

violating the balancing principle of sustainability;

e) analysis is focused on the pieces of development, instead of the whole of

developmnent, violating the systematic nature of sustainability;

f) enphasis is on the use of tools of environmental assessment, not of

social assesment, violating the scientific basis of sustainability:

sustainability tools to deal with sustainability issues;

g) emphasis is on actions to address the consequences, not on to preventing

or mitigating the significance of those consequences, violating the

action-reaction principle of sustainability.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that we are implementing "the promotion of environmental

sustainability" as if social sustainability is a given despite the

acceptance in the introduction of this conference that socio-economic

factors are the non-sustainable culprists, can we, as rational thinkers,

accept that this is a sustainable way to go when social sustainability

appears now to be the limiting factor?. At least, I do not think so.

However, I do agree that eco-economic development is one step better that

pure economic development, in sustainability terms.

ONE WAY TO CLOSE THE MISMATCH

I believe that we must find the way to link "the promotion of environmental

sustainability" to the "promotion of social sustainability", which is a

thought consistent with Mr. Alimi's call that we should give a more serious

consideration to social sustainability.

TO HIGHLIGHT THE MISMATCH A LITTLE MORE

The goal of the world bank by its own laws is the elimination of

poverty(SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY), not the elimination of environmental

externalities(ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY), and this general mismatch has

to be addressed sooner or later by the member parties of the world bank.

Notice that in the contradictory nature of this situation we may be able to

find the rational for priority development planning at the world bank.

Now, this is enough for me, and I will let others participate as I am sure

we all have ideas or concerns to share.

My warm greetings and your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Taufiq Alimi

To: Promoting Environmental Sustainability <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:05 PM

Subject: [env-sust] Fw: social sustainability and environmental

sustainability

 

>

>

> >Dear Mr. Munoz and others...

> >I am Taufiq Alimi, academic director of LEAD Indonesia, and am very

> >interested in the discussion between Mr. Munoz and Mr. Kasyanov. This

> >ignites a thought in my mind about the issue of social sustainability.

....

....

> >Following this line of thought, we see that environment sustainability is

> >not more important than the sustainability of human being. The

> >sustainibility of peace, sense of place of every person in their own

> >cultural niche, and a well being, is what development should up to. And

for

> >doing so, we need a sustainable environment.

....

....

. Yet, it will be a lot better if various "prescriptions" offered by

> the Bank in developing a country is aimed at the development of human

being. As

> >it happens in Indonesia, after the crises unravelled the economy, the IMF

> >came and offer prescription under the umbrella of structural adjustment.

> Theadjustment targets the collapsed banking system, promotes the recovery

of

> >industrial sector, enhances the small and medium enterprise etc. None of

it

> >touches the destructing distrust that spreaded over the citizens. I am

> awarethat this may not be the responsibility of the Bank, and it is unfair

to

> askthe Bank to touch upon such issue. But, I think Bank should at least

find

> >other agency that will take care of that problem. Otherwise the

adjustment

> >and money for it will be spent for nothing. All efforts will meet failure

> ifthe social sustainability is not secured first.

> >Thanks and again thanks to the Bank and the OED for organizing this

> fruitful

> >discussion.

> >Best Regards

> >

> >Taufiq Alimi

> >Academic Director

> >Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD)

> >Indonesia

> >

October 6/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: comment on Zero emission technologies needed

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

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Ranji George >

Subject: [env-sust] Re: Zero emission technologies are needed including renewable energy, hydrogen and fuel cells

Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:30:49 -0700

Dear Friends, Leapfrogging is a very interesting concept and proposition,

but for the poor and middle income countries under consideretion here this

may lead to more institutionalized dependency. Two problems I can see with

this: a) Local Neutrality problem: since technology is not group neutral,

only those who can afford it can use it, so only those who can afford it

will leapfrog leaving the majority of the population in most of these

countries out of leaprogging: the result may be more inequality; or can we

make these technologies affordable to all without having a sustainable

demand?; and b) Non-local neutrality problem: since technology is not cost

neutral,

only those countries who can afford their development cost will develop

them, own them,

and control them: the result more inequality,or can we make these

technologies available

to all regardless of who bears the R and D cost and/or without these

countries being able

to sustain the market?

My comments are aimed to point out that leapfrogging has to be looked

With caution as technologies, clean or not, are being implemented or may have to

be implemented, in a world based on very unequal initial social, economic,

and environmental endowments.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <RGeorge@…>

To: Promoting Environmental Sustainability <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:20 PM

Subject: [env-sust] Zero emission technologies are needed including

renewable energy, hydrogen and fuel cells

 

> Leapfrog into new technology. Allow me to first congratulate the Bank in

> creating a forum to collect opinions. Hopefully, the Bank will include

> some of the proposals it obtains. It may not be able to change the world

> overnight, but at the very least, it can provide direct environmentally

> leadership on the megaprojects it funds. A friend of mine observed that

> in an East European country, the people are using cell phones in large

> numbers - that the country has leapfrogged into the new technology by

> bypassing the old, expensive technology of putting lot of cables in the

> ground. So to with the Bank. It can encourage developing countries to

> leapfrog into new environmentally sustainable technologies, and avoid the

> old, environmentally damaging, traditional route of economic development -

> which the West has experienced

 

October 19/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference:Open discourse or closed discourse

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:46:34 +0530

From: "Vandana Bhatnagar"

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: [env-sust] Open Discourse or Closed Discourse

Dear Mr.Munoz,

I am a researcher at the Tata Energy Research Institute (New Delhi), and

have been reading your contributions to this discussion with some

interest. I was particularly intrigued by your earlier point on aligning

people's value systems/ beliefs with the sustainability principle. And the

analogy of a drunker driver (was that yours?), seemed particularly apt.

I would be interested in knowing more about any work being done in this

direction. Do you think this is merely the territory of advocacy orgns

(e.g. Greenpeace, ECO) or are there other ways of mainstreaming sustainabil

ity into the social psyche?

The two basic conflicts one sees with current value systems, that would

need to be addressed are:

# The shift in perspectives from short term to long term

# The shift from material well being to emotional & spiritual well being

as an indicator of self worth.

The latter seems to tread into the domain of religion & the philosophies

underlying a society - something the market based systems are distinctly

uncomfortable dealing with (the emerging New Age market notwithstanding!).

However, am clueless as to what would facilitate the former - other than

greater sophistication & responsibility in people's analytical processes.

I should add that in a developing country like India, there seems very

little possibility of the above shifts being achieved at any significant

level, in the forseeable future. Once the genie of material aspirations

has been released, it is difficult (if not impossible) to put the lid back

on it. The irony is that often creation of material aspirations is what

triggers a desire amongst the oppressed & deprived sections of our

society, to fight for an improvement in their social condition (something

akin to what was witnessed through the industrial revolution phase). This

is more so in the Indian context, where the belief systems foster a

passive & fatalistic approach to life.

Therefore in a convoluted way, material aspirations may often be the

catalyst for a social upheaval that in turn leads towards the longer term

goal of social sustainability.

I would welcome your thoughts/ comments on the above, and more so

suggestions for works/ readings in this direction. And my apologies in

advance for this unsolicited (& somewhat presumptuous) download of

personal views.

Kind regards,

Vandana

PS: I refrained from putting these thoughts out on the general discussion,

since they tread outside the scope laid out by the moderators.

Vandana Bhatnagar

Centre for Environmental Studies

T E R I (New Delhi, India)

>>> munoz1@sprint.ca 10/18 11:17 AM >>>

Dear Friends, there are at least two ways to approach development

discourse: Open Discourse which to me means honest discourse; and closed discourse,

which to me means selective silence. I prefer open discourse, and the

promise of open discourse keeps bringing me and my time into this

discusion. However, we should not just criticize, but offer possible ways out, at

Least in theory to the points we make. As Mr. Alimi from Indonesia points out,

We should find ways to bring social sustainality to the front of our

development concerns, and please see my points below. I make my usual

positive comments and my views on possible ways out.

THE REPORT

As I mentioned in my first posting, I got the feeling that this forum

was going to be focused on the consequences only, which by definition is

not sustainability move, and provides the grounds to see the mismatches and

matches bank policies-causes and bank policies-consequences to me easier.

I see the following mismatches in the report:

a) priority is given to environmental goals while social goals appear to

be the priority in poor and middle income countries, violating the consistency

principle of sustainability;

b) policy prescription appears to be the norm, not participation,

violating the inclusion principle of sustainability,

c) monitoring of environmental issues is enphasised, not of social issues,

violating the integration principle of sustainability;

d) maintreaming the environment is the key, not of social sustainability,

violating the balancing principle of sustainability;

e) analysis is focused on the pieces of development, instead of the whole

of developmnent, violating the systematic nature of sustainability;

f) enphasis is on the use of tools of environmental assessment, not of

social assesment, violating the scientific basis of sustainability:

sustainability tools to deal with sustainability issues;

g) emphasis is on actions to address the consequences, not on to preventing

or mitigating the significance of those consequences, violating the

action-reaction principle of sustainability.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that we are implementing "the promotion of environmental

sustainability" as if social sustainability is a given despite the

acceptance in the introduction of this conference that socio-economic

factors are the non-sustainable culprists, can we, as rational thinkers,

accept that this is a sustainable way to go when social sustainability

appears now to be the limiting factor?. At least, I do not think so.

However, I do agree that eco-economic development is one step better that

pure economic development, in sustainability terms.

ONE WAY TO CLOSE THE MISMATCH

I believe that we must find the way to link "the promotion of environmental

sustainability" to the "promotion of social sustainability", which is a

thought consistent with Mr. Alimi's call that we should give a more

serious consideration to social sustainability.

TO HIGHLIGHT THE MISMATCH A LITTLE MORE

The goal of the world bank by its own laws is the elimination of

poverty(SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY), not the elimination of environmental

externalities(ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY), and this general mismatch has

to be addressed sooner or later by the member parties of the world bank.

Notice that in the contradictory nature of this situation we may be able

To find the rational for priority development planning at the world bank.

Now, this is enough for me, and I will let others participate as I am sure

we all have ideas or concerns to share.

My warm greetings and your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz=20

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

From: Taufiq Alimi

To: Promoting Environmental Sustainability <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 9:05 PM

Subject: [env-sust] Fw: social sustainability and environmental

sustainability

 

>

>

> >Dear Mr. Munoz and others...

> >I am Taufiq Alimi, academic director of LEAD Indonesia, and am very

> >interested in the discussion between Mr. Munoz and Mr. Kasyanov. This

> >ignites a thought in my mind about the issue of social sustainability.

....

....

> >Following this line of thought, we see that environment sustainability =

is not more important than the sustainability of human being. The

> >sustainibility of peace, sense of place of every person in their own

> >cultural niche, and a well being, is what development should up to. And

for doing so, we need a sustainable environment.

....

....

. Yet, it will be a lot better if various "prescriptions" offered by

> the Bank in developing a country is aimed at the development of human

being. As it happens in Indonesia, after the crises unravelled the economy, the

IMF came and offer prescription under the umbrella of structural adjustment.

> Theadjustment targets the collapsed banking system, promotes the

recovery of industrial sector, enhances the small and medium enterprise etc. None

of it touches the destructing distrust that spreaded over the citizens. I am

> awarethat this may not be the responsibility of the Bank, and it is

unfair to ask the Bank to touch upon such issue. But, I think Bank should at least

find other agency that will take care of that problem. Otherwise the

adjustment and money for it will be spent for nothing. All efforts will meet =

failure if the social sustainability is not secured first.

> >Thanks and again thanks to the Bank and the OED for organizing this

> fruitful discussion.

> >Best Regards

> >

> >Taufiq Alimi

> >Academic Director

> >Leadership for Environment and Development (LEAD)

> >Indonesia

> >

October 19/2000/Message from Mr. Burgon

From: "James Burgon"

To: munoz1@sprint.ca

Subject: Rural development and conservation in Africa

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:00:50 GMT

Dear writer

After reading your article on sustainable approaches to the environment, I

was hoping you could possibly help me or put me in touch with anyone

regarding an essay question set- I am currently a third year student

studying Geography in Brighton and I am beginning to take a huge interest in

this topic of conservation and the issues surrounding it with reference to

the World Bank and its policies. The essay title is -

'There is nothing simple about surviving in the drylands' (Mortimore,

1998:39)

With reference to a particular resource issue in Africa, consider the

implications of this statement for rural development interventions.

Any help would be greatly appreciated and I would be more than happy to

e-mail you a copy of the finished piece of work for criticism and possible

feedback.

Many Thanks

James Burgon

October 20/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: comment on Summary # 1

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

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] Re: Summary #1

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:01:39 -0700

Dear Friends,

It is not easy to summarize direct institutional criticism,

and so the content of this summary is an indication to me that perhaps we

are going to slowly observed some institutional change toward improving how

the Bank works internally and externally in the future. Institutions, as

human beings, are not perfect. Hence the aim is, and perhaps most will

agree, to get as close to the perfect state as possible.

Good work;

Lucio Munoz

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

October 27/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference: Financing CP and/or PP

From: "Desta Mebratu"

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [env-sust] 'Financing CP and/or PP'

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:57:51 GMT

Greetings,

This is Desta Mebratu from Ethiopia. I would like to reflect on some of the

participants'inputs that are related to my contribution on the need for

giving due emphasis to pollution prevention and cleaner production in WB's

programs.

On 'Greening of industry'

David Shaman wrote that 'The report, entitled Greening Industry, documented

the issues regulators faced and including a number of examples of pilot

programs they launched,some with the help of the Bank, to address prevention

and reduction problems. We learned a number of interesting things'.

I downloaded this WB publication from the web a few months back. Looking at

the title, my first assumption was that this must be a book, which promotes

proactive environmental management. But I found the book to be more inclined

towards pollution control. In cases where there were some references to

reduction it was more on the pollution reduction side rather than on waste

reduction. Even the chapter which talks about the 'New Model' (Chapter 7)

have little reference to pollution prevention (PP) and cleaner production

(CP). In short, I found the book to be useful in terms of presenting some of

the economic and policy instruments that can be used to promote pollution

control in developing countries, but it is weak in presenting the PP and/or

CP dimension. As a matter of fact, this was one of the reasons why I

suggested in my earlier input for the Bank to do more on integrating PP/CP

in its operation. Here I would like to point out that the question is not

about either/or. It is about effectively combining the End-of-Pipe (EOP)

approach with preventive strategies. This can be achieved through the

promotion of an 'Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control' (IPPC)

strategy that provides the framework for promoting sustainable industrial

development in the developing world.

On CP and/or PP financing

Burt Hamner wrote that 'Special financing programs for cleaner production,

or in fact for any small business development, are fraught with hazard and

have a very high failure rate, which the World Bank has recognized in

several reports. None of the existing programs for financing cleaner

production are more than just repackaged subsidy programs, and most of the

programs are almost inactive due to low demand. The Bank should not engage

in special financing programs

directly to promote sustainable business'.

I do agree with Burt that any financing scheme is doomed to fail if it is

based on providing subsidies and CP financing should not be designed as a

subsidizing scheme. In my opinion, the need for special financing schemes

for CP emerges from the need for applying a new set of project screening and

evaluation criteria that is different from the conventional project

screening and evaluation. This is mainly related to the fact that most CP

interventions, as interventions within existing process settings, are either

not easy to be presented as a 'project' proper or do not qualify to be taken

as a bankable projects. Moreover, there is a risk factor that is related to

the financial sensitivity of the small business for which these kinds of

financing schemes are meant for. Here, it should be noted that the risk that

is faced by such financing schemes is related more to the smallness of the

businesses they taerget rather than the project being on CP. In this

context, I believe that the success of special financing programs on CP is

dependent on how it is organized and operated and failure in one region

should not lead to an overall conclusion. Because, there are success stories

which refute this kind of generalization. An example in this category is the

financing scheme in Mexico. Thus, I would say the Bank should engage in

special financing programs to promote sustainable business as far as it is

SUSTAINABLE.

The issue of environmental versus social sustainability has been one of the

major focuses for a number of participants’ contribution. While I do share

the concern of my colleagues about the ‘peripheral’ attention given to

social sustainability I found it redundant to dwell much upon this

non-existent dichotomy. As I have indicated in my inputs to the first round

of discussion in this forum talking in terms of economic, social and

environmental sustainability is fundamentally flawed. In real world, these

components are dynamically intertwined making it impossible to draw a line

between them. As was indicated by some participants, it will be futile to

address environmental sustainability in the developing world without dealing

with poverty in those countries. Similarly, it will be futile to address

environmental sustainability in industrialized countries without dealing

with the 'affluent' consumption pattern. In this context, I believe that

every environmental sustainability issue has an inherent social dimension

and the Bank's agenda of mainstreaming environmental issues will require

adopting a systems approach and moving away from creating non-existent

di(tri?)chotomies.

Regards

Desta

November 29/2000/World Bank's environmental compliance conference: compliance of companis, consensus, incentives

From: "Jason Switzer"

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [compliance] RE: Compliance of Companies, consensus, Incentives

Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:51:25 +0100

Hello

Jason Switzer from the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

I would like to make two points here, from which I hope to hear your

reactions.

First, that compliance needs to be in the interest of the target firm.

Second, that compliance is not enough.

Just spent a month and a half working at the Secretariat for the World

Commission on Dams, a multistakeholder dialogue between business, the

financial community, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, dam builders

and dam protesters, aimed at developing consensus guidelines for large

dam-related decisionmaking.

see www.dams.org for details.

Compliance was a major aspect of the work of the Commission. Most

importantly, the Commission recognized that compliance must be:

1. Verifiable by concerned stakeholders

2. Supported by an alignment of incentives.

Jonathan Lipper's comment re: ensuring the Polluter does not hold onto the

benefits from non compliance, is an important point. However, it depends on

a strong monitoring and enforcement capacity, the use of complex (and i bet

legally contestable) models, and a set of rules under which, if the EPA does

not prosecute, the public is able to pressure/sue the government into taking

action. This is clearly not the case in most developing countries.

Thus the importance of community right-to-know legislation, the success of

BAPEDAL's PROPER program, the growing pressure from the financial community

for environmental performance reporting (CERES, DJSGI), and the emergence of

SD reporting standards (GRI).

In any case, reclaiming profits from non-compliance is after the fact, or

end-of-pipe. Developing a 'culture of compliance' arguably requires

companies to have a stake in playing by the rules.

One means for moving incentives for compliance into alignment is

'performance bonds' in which a developer who engages in a risky activity

(such as dam building) sets aside funds in advance which are returned based

on delivery on various social and environmental performance milestones. A

stakeholder group is the judge of performance delivery, with disputes

subject to transparent judicial review.

Secondly, regardless of what lines are drawn in the sand by legislation

regarding environmental or social performance, this form of rulemaking and

enforcement has not been effective in preventing the emergence of new

environmental problems (ozone depletion, climate change, endocrine

disruption...). Legislation will nearly always lag behind. So, how can we

encourage companies to go 'beyond compliance'?

Here I think that the emergence of environmental management systems is a

major step forward, as are commitments, such as that of DuPont, to seek to

become not merely 'zero footprint' but regenerative.

The strongest regulators are not the public, not civil society, certainly

not the state, but large business operations. The push of environmental

management system and performance requirements down the thousands of firms

that make up supply chain by major OEMs (Ford, Toyota) is a clear sign of

the kind of power these firms have in self-regulating.

Now how can we get them to change the way that products are conceived and

sold that moves us towards a culture of compliance-by-default, and

encourages 'beyond compliance' behavior ?

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

From: Michelle Keene

Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 6:28 AM

To: Environmental Compliance E-Consultation

Subject: [compliance] Re: Complliance of households and other

non-business entities

 

Thank you for the interesting comment from the Philippines. Household

waste and other non-industrial sources of pollution are important

considerations when we talk about compliance. Your comments about

compliance and consensus building are also critical. International

experience has shown that compliance with environmental policies often

depends on the extent to which various stakeholders (lower levels of

government,industry, civil society, etc.) view the goals and objectives of

environmental policy as feasible and fair. In short, it seems that

building a consensus among a range of stakeholders in developing

environmental policies is a prerequsite for achieving environmental

compliance. The challenge, of course, is for stakeholders to organize

themselves in such a way whereby they can constructively consult with one

another in developing practical and implementable policies. It would be

interesting to hear from other participants about their experience with

stakeholder involvement and consensus building and the role they play in

enforcment and compliance approaches.

November 3/2000/RESECON/Agricultural to forest conversion

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:09:22 -0800

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

From: Frank

Subject: Ag. to forest conversions

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Status:

Hello RESECON,

Between 1987 and 1997 the area of forested land in the Midwestern U.S. grew

appreciably. Conversations with some "local experts" convinces us that a

considerable amount of this increase is attributable to the reversion of

abandoned or marginal farmland (particularly pasture land) to forest. We

are interested in accessing the POTENTIAL for this kind of conversion.

That is, what is the greatest potential amount of increase in forest land

attributable to the reversion of agricultural land? Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Frank

USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station

(but working at home today)

November 3/2000/RESECON/Agriculture to forest conversion

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:34:12 -0500

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

From: Eads

Subject: Re: Ag. to forest conversions

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Status:

I organize my suggestions/comments according to the three elements embedded in

your message (as I have parsed them):

(1) This 10-year growth assertion (1987-1997) is very curious on its face value;

coming from the midwest myself and having lived near wooded and open

agricultural land, I cannot intuitively imagine how a forest can "grow" from

nothing within a short 10-year period. I personally know of "abandoned" pasture

and agricultural parcels of midwestern land which have remained in a prairie

grass condition for this short period of time (i.e. 10 years), rather than "

naturally reverting" to forestland in the absence of any "assisted conversion"

to forestland (e.g. by planting new trees). I recommend the collection of

adequate, detailed and representative data across the midwest to substantiate

this assertion, as worthy first task in itself. After such data are collected,

I believe that one can then gleen lessons and insights about the origins,

causes, mechanisms, outcomes, and future potential, from inspection of the

collected data. In fact, with the phenomenon of "urban sprawl" (e.g. Chicago

suburbs), I would expect that the data, if properly and accurately collected,

would show that the opposite has occured -- that the quantity of forestland has

declined over this 10-year period.

(2) The apparent or suspected cause(s) of forestland growth (if it has indeed

actually occurred in the midwest region, and/or other regions of the USA for

that matter), could be ascertained by sytematically inspecting and analyzing the

database, once a proper database is collected and created, rather than relying

on anecdotal and biased personal opinions of "local experts". On the other

hand, "local experts" may provide information that could be used to formulate

alternative hypotheses and explanatory factors which could be "tested" using a

regional forestland database.

(3) There are many alternative uses of this type of data; forecasting the

"potential" for future forestland growth is only one of them. However, before

attempting to develop forecasts, I would recommend beginning by developing

explanations of observed historical trends in forestland. Historical trend

analysis, as well as forecasting, should take into account both physical (i.e.

geographical) explanatory factors, as well as social explanatory factors (and

assumptions about the future character of these factors), in deriving both

historical explanations, and projections of future "potential".

Relevant geographic explanatory factors (quantitative) for historical

forestland trend analysis and for future forestland forecasting may include:

-- regional acres of arable land

-- regional acres of riparian land

-- regional acres of industrial land

-- regional acres of residential land

-- regional acres of urbanization

-- regional transportation density

-- regional acres of surface water

-- regional acres of forestland

-- regional terrain characteristics (e.g. flat, sloping, ravines, hills,

mountains)

-- regional soil type patterns

-- regional inventory/coverage of flora (e.g. types of trees)

-- regional inventory/coverage of fauna (e.g. migratory bird routes)

-- regional annual rainfall patterns (e.g. arid vs wet)

-- regional annual temperature patterns

-- regional sun and daylight hour patterns (e.g. short vs long annual

daylight hours)

Relevant social explanatory factors (qualitative and quantitative) for

historical forestland trend analysis and for future forestland forecasting may

include:

-- county/municipal/state land use policies (e.g. surburban land

development plans)

-- Federal/state/county agricultural policies (e.g. fallow land subsidies)

-- regional human population patterns/trends (e.g. proportions urban vs

rural)

-- regional employment patterns (e.g. percent of workforce in agriculture)

-- regional agricultural activity patterns (types of crops/markets, average

farm size)

-- regional timber industry activities

-- regional programs/resources for "assisted conversion" to create

forestlands.

The items above certainly do not represent an exhaustive list of analytic

possibilities.

M. Eads, Economist

US Environmental Protection Agency

Economics, Methods & Risk Analysis Division

Office of Solid Waste,

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

benford@open.

org To: RESECON@lsv.uky.edu

cc:

11/03/00 Subject: Ag. to forest

01:09 PM conversions

Please

respond to

benford

Hello RESECON,

(1) Between 1987 and 1997 the area of forested land in the Midwestern U.S. grew

appreciably.

(2) Conversations with some "local experts" convinces us that a

considerable amount of this increase is attributable to the reversion of

abandoned or marginal farmland (particularly pasture land) to forest.

(3) We are interested in accessing the POTENTIAL for this kind of conversion.

That is, what is the greatest potential amount of increase in forest land

attributable to the reversion of agricultural land? Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Benford

USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station

(but working at home today

November 3/2000/RESECON/Agriculture to forest conversion

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:26:40 -0500

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

From: Landy Johnson

Subject: Re: Ag. to forest conversions

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Thanks to Mark Eads for his useful list of factors to consider when trying

to explain land-use change, as I am doing in a dissertation in progress on

wetlands losses.

Regarding the question at hand, I find that many people have trouble with

the concept of land returning to a forested or wetland state after the

land has been in some other use. Nature can be surprising, and

agricultural land can in fact become forested again over a ten-year period

in some climates. Hot, wet areas of the South are one possibility.

One caution, however. I am using NRI data which show an increase in

wetlands in some parts of Mississippi. Some of the "new" wetlands are

areas where wetlands have been created by installing the necessary

hydrology. The wetlands haven't necessarily "sprung up" on their own. It

is possible that some reforestation has been helped along by tree

planting.

Also, the NRI dataset requires the field researchers to place a parcel in

a particular land-use category. If a parcel has only small seedlings but

is designated "forest" on the local tax rolls, I think the parcel might be

called forest land even if it doesn't look like a full-grown forest.

There's a legal designation that might or might not carry scientific

weight. If a forest is "land with some trees, not being used for

agriculture..." then it's easier to think of agricultural land reverting

to forest.

Definitions matter a lot. On that subject, if anyone has an opinion as to

whether a catfish pond is a wetland I'd be interested in hearing from you.

Landy Johnson

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Mark Eads wrote:

> I organize my suggestions/comments according to the three elements embedded in

> your message (as I have parsed them):

>

> (1) This 10-year growth assertion (1987-1997) is very curious on its face value;

> coming from the midwest myself and having lived near wooded and open

> agricultural land, I cannot intuitively imagine how a forest can "grow" from

> nothing within a short 10-year period. I personally know of "abandoned" pasture

> and agricultural parcels of midwestern land which have remained in a prairie

> grass condition for this short period of time (i.e. 10 years), rather than "

> naturally reverting" to forestland in the absence of any "assisted conversion"

> to forestland (e.g. by planting new trees). I recommend the collection of

> adequate, detailed and representative data across the midwest to substantiate

> this assertion, as worthy first task in itself. After such data are collected,

> I believe that one can then gleen lessons and insights about the origins,

> causes, mechanisms, outcomes, and future potential, from inspection of the

> collected data. In fact, with the phenomenon of "urban sprawl" (e.g. Chicago

> suburbs), I would expect that the data, if properly and accurately collected,

> would show that the opposite has occured -- that the quantity of forestland has

> declined over this 10-year period.

>

> (2) The apparent or suspected cause(s) of forestland growth (if it has indeed

> actually occurred in the midwest region, and/or other regions of the USA for

> that matter), could be ascertained by sytematically inspecting and analyzing the

> database, once a proper database is collected and created, rather than relying

> on anecdotal and biased personal opinions of "local experts". On the other

> hand, "local experts" may provide information that could be used to formulate

> alternative hypotheses and explanatory factors which could be "tested" using a

> regional forestland database.

>

> (3) There are many alternative uses of this type of data; forecasting the

> "potential" for future forestland growth is only one of them. However, before

> attempting to develop forecasts, I would recommend beginning by developing

> explanations of observed historical trends in forestland. Historical trend

> analysis, as well as forecasting, should take into account both physical (i.e.

> geographical) explanatory factors, as well as social explanatory factors (and

> assumptions about the future character of these factors), in deriving both

> historical explanations, and projections of future "potential".

> Relevant geographic explanatory factors (quantitative) for historical

> forestland trend analysis and for future forestland forecasting may include:

> -- regional acres of arable land

> -- regional acres of riparian land

> -- regional acres of industrial land

> -- regional acres of residential land

> -- regional acres of urbanization

> -- regional transportation density

> -- regional acres of surface water

> -- regional acres of forestland

> -- regional terrain characteristics (e.g. flat, sloping, ravines, hills,

> mountains)

> -- regional soil type patterns

> -- regional inventory/coverage of flora (e.g. types of trees)

> -- regional inventory/coverage of fauna (e.g. migratory bird routes)

> -- regional annual rainfall patterns (e.g. arid vs wet)

> -- regional annual temperature patterns

> -- regional sun and daylight hour patterns (e.g. short vs long annual

> daylight hours)

> Relevant social explanatory factors (qualitative and quantitative) for

> historical forestland trend analysis and for future forestland forecasting may

> include:

> -- county/municipal/state land use policies (e.g. surburban land

> development plans)

> -- Federal/state/county agricultural policies (e.g. fallow land subsidies)

> -- regional human population patterns/trends (e.g. proportions urban vs

> rural)

> -- regional employment patterns (e.g. percent of workforce in agriculture)

> -- regional agricultural activity patterns (types of crops/markets, average

> farm size)

> -- regional timber industry activities

> -- regional programs/resources for "assisted conversion" to create

> forestlands.

> The items above certainly do not represent an exhaustive list of analytic

> possibilities.

>

> Mark Eads, Economist

November 4/2000/RESECON/Agriculture to forest conversion

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:21:00 -0600

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

From: "Jay D. Atwood"

Subject: FW: Ag to forest conversions

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

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

From: Grantridge@aol.com [mailto:Grantridge@aol.com]

Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:11 PM

To: RESECON@lsv.uky.edu; jatwood@brc.tamus.edu

Subject: Ag to forest conversions

My question, in regard to this inquiry, is how researchers are defining

"forested land" for the purposes of this research. In Iowa, many abandoned

pastures are reverting to tree and brush cover. But many of these pastures

were originally tallgrass prairie or savanna, not forest. (Not surprising,

since 85% percent of Iowa was prairie.)

I don't know if this inquiry deals with the issue of whether the conversion

of pastures to wooded land is desirable or undesirable. But much of the

conversion in Iowa is considered undesirable by ecologists, and is a result

of fire suppression.

The trees and shrubs that are invading prairie and savanna pastures are

Often non-indigenous, such as Siberian elm, Eurasian buckthorn, Japanese

honeysuckle, etc. Other invading woody species are native to Iowa, but did

not originally grow in the kinds of areas being invaded.

The Loess Hills of western Iowa are a good example of this process. Prior

to European settlement, the hills were almost entirely covered with prairie.

After European settlement, the natural fire regime was stopped. Now red

cedars, as well as gray dogwood and sumac, have taken over the hills, to the

point that only a tiny percentage of the original prairie is left. The

soil under the cedars is bare and eroding. There are growing efforts to remove

the trees and shrubs, using fire, chainsaws, herbicide, etc.

Some Iowa pastures were originally oak savannas, with scattered open-grown

bur oaks and understory wildflowers and sedges. Many of these savanna

pastures (both abandoned and currently grazed) are being invaded by black

cherry, ash, elm, and other woodies. The invaders are shading and killing

both the lower limbs of the oaks and the understory plants.

The invasion of woody species is considered one of the top threats to Iowa's

remaining prairies and savannas. Of course there are also some

originally-forested abandoned pastures in Iowa which are reverting back to

forest, which is good to see. But many of the new wooded areas that I see

in Iowa are the result of woody species invading pastures that are current

or former prairie and savanna areas.

I assume the situation is different in Midwestern states which had more

original forest cover, though prairie pastures are being invaded by woodies

in other states too. I hope this information is useful, and could suggest

other Iowans to consult if that would be helpful.

Cindy Hildebrand

November 6/2000/RESECON/Agriculture to forest conversion

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:53:53 -0500

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

From: Dawn Parker

Subject: Re: Ag. to forest conversions

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Frank Bedford's question is a good one, and like others, I'm sure there is

not one simple answer. I'm part of a research team trying to understand

sources of land cover change (both deforestation and reforestation) in

South-central Indiana. In this region, quite a bit of reforestation has

occurred following an almost complete deforestation of the state in the

mid-nineteenth century. To a great extent, that reforestation has occurred

as farming was abandoned on marginal lands (often in non-glaciated highly

sloped terrain). However, reforestation continues even as farming becomes

increasingly less important in the regional economy, and we expect that

other sources of reforestation will be identified.

Unlike Iowa, the entire state of Indiana was originally forested, and land

left fallow does quickly revert to mixed forest cover.

We are in the process of putting together a data set for South-Central

Indiana containing much of the information suggested by Mark Eads,

excluding information on climate and rainfall. Our data for recent years

will also be contained in spatially explicit GIS coverages. If other

researchers in the Midwest are developing similar data sets, it would be

very interesting to compare across sites. Whatever the net level of

change in forest cover across the Midwest, it is probably the case that

there are local incidences of both deforestation and reforestation. It

would be very interesting to identify what processes impacting these

changes operate at a local level and what processes operate across

regions.

 

Dawn Cassandra Parker

Post-Doctoral Fellow

Center for the study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change

Indiana University

November 6/2000/World Bank's promoting environmental sustainability conference

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:06:25 -0500

Subject: [env-sust] Concluding Remarks

To: "Promoting Environmental Sustainability" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "Mani" <mmani@worldbank.org>

Concluding Remarks

We would like to thank all the participants who took part during the last

four weeks of this discussion on the Bank's performance in promoting

environmental sustainability. We have had a stimulating discussion due

active participation and diversity of views expressed on various issues.

Academics, researchers, NGOs, World Bank staff, and others concerned with

environmental sustainability and development issues throughout the globe

were among the participants. We would also like to take this opportunity

to offer special thanks to some of the participants for presenting

first-hand accounts of the results of the Bank's work and others for

leading the discussion with their impressions and ideas regarding the

environmental impact of specific Bank projects and programs.

Although the forum is now officially closed, we are hoping to resume

discussions in March or April 2001 to present findings and recommendations

of the OED evaluation. The ideas and issues generated in this discussion

will be taken in account for the final OED report. The forum messages will

continue to be archived as usual.

Once again, thank you for your input and we look forward to your continued

participation in our next round of discussions.

--Moderators

November 30/2000/World Bank's conference on environmentl compliance

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:19:48 -0500

Subject: [compliance] Re: Compliance, maximization, partial regulation, and system dominance

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "Michelle Keene"

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

This seminar is intended to focus on the practical means to achieving

environmental compliance and enforcement. However, at the same time you

bring up an important point in considering the theoretical issues that go

into developing effective enforcement and compliance mechanisms. For the

benefit of our seminar participants, would you please clarify what you

mean by "maximization, partial regulation, and system dominance"? Thank

you.

November 30/2000/World Bank's conference on environmental comliance: reply

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

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [compliance] Re: Compliance, maximization, partial regulation, and system dominance

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:49:02 -0800

Dear Mr. Keene, almost all the postings sent so far relate in one way or

another to the three characteristics mentioned above. As I said before, I

look at the problem of compliance from the system point of view and whether

we are assessing prevention of polluting activities(Shop establishing

process) or creation of laws or enforcement of laws, it seems to me that

information about these three characteristics is key one: Maximization of

profit or production or consumption are usually the goals in practice;

partial regulation is usually the situation in practice as the neiboring

community or country may not have such similar standards; and system

dominance is the rule usually(rich/poor; big corporations/small businesses;

developed countries/developing countries...). Information about

maximization goals can be used to determine appropriate levels of penalties;

information about existent or needed regulation can be useful to achieving

safe levels of partial regulation; and information about dominance may help

to bring the equity issues expressed more in line. To me, without a sound

systematic theory is difficult to ping point effective practice, be it

prevention or enforcement and I think that we should dedicate some research

into this area. As we know, practice without theory or theory without

practice may not be consistent with traditional scientific theory, they must

be somehow balanced out.

The ideas being presented are very interesting, and I look forward to

exchanging views.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

Independent Researcher

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

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

From: Michelle Keene

To: Environmental Compliance E-Consultation <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:19 PM

Subject: [compliance] Re: Compliance, maximization, partial regulation, and

system dominance

 

> This seminar is intended to focus on the practical means to achieving

> environmental compliance and enforcement. However, at the same time you

> bring up an important point in considering the theoretical issues that go

> into developing effective enforcement and compliance mechanisms. For the

> benefit of our seminar participants, would you please clarify what you

> mean by "maximization, partial regulation, and system dominance"? Thank

> you.

>

> ---

November 30/2000/World Bank's biodiversity internete seminar

Subject: [biodiversity] Proceedings of the Biodiversity Internet Seminar June 20 - July 21, 2000

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

Bcc:

From: Devforum@worldbank.org

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:45:41 -0500

Dear Participants,

Thank you again for your participation in the Biodiversity Internet

Seminar, organised by the Environment and Natural Resources group of the

World Bank Institute. It was an interesting and enriching discussion. Many

ideas were raised and alternatives proposed. Proceedings of the seminar

have been compiled to summarize and synthesize them and are included

below. For those of you with Web access, this document is also available

at the following website:

http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/EDI/sforest.nsf/MainView?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=3#3

or alternatively at : http://www. worldbank.org/forestry

and then click on Useful Links and Sustainable forestry training, where

it is under the section 'Programs'.

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

June 20 - July 21, 2000

Prepared by Arati Belle

Summary of Discussions

Background and Introduction

This Biodiversity Conservation and Use Internet seminar was organized by

the World Bank Institute's Environment and Natural Resources Division as

an activity in its 'Sustainable Management of Forests and Biodiversity1'

program. Its goals were to have an open discussion that would highlight

and prioritize key questions, share knowledge and experience, and further

the present discourse on the role of biodiversity in poverty alleviation

and the future of biodiversity conservation. In his opening remarks, Vinod

Thomas, Vice President, WBI, hoped that, "this Internet seminar will

provide the opportunity to exchange innovative solutions among development

practitioners across the globe. And, furthermore, to identify practical

and workable solutions to sustainably manage this critical resource."

The Internet seminar was patterned on the format of a traditional seminar,

with opening plenary in the first week (June 26-30), followed by parallel

moderated sessions(July 3-14) - Participants however, has the option of

joining multiple sessions - ending with a final plenary (July 17-21).

Experts from IUCN, the World Bank and other organizations moderated the

discussions. In all there were 779 members representing NGO's academia,

policymakers, international agencies etc and they have altogether posted

over 130 messages to the entire group.

The starting point for this discussion was the Statement of the 15th

Global Biodiversity Forum to the 5th meeting of the Conference of the

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which notes that: "The

conservation, sustainable use and, in particular, the fair and equitable

sharing of the benefits of biodiversity should form an essential element of

effective poverty eradication strategies." This document outlines various

approaches to achieving the goals of poverty alleviation and biodiversity

conservation including instruments for access and benefit sharing from

genetic resources, recognition of cultural and indigenous rights and the

focuses on the specific concerns surrounding arid and semi-arid ecosystems

and agricultural systems. Education, participation and capacity-building

to promote sustainable use are seen as essential ingredients of a

strategy to preserve biodiversity and promote poverty alleviation.

In addition, background papers, such as those by Perrings2, and Perrings

and Walker3, outlined more theoretical approaches to understanding the

pressures that result in land use conversion, which are potentially

harmful to biodiversity conservation. The role and limitations of economic

incentives and market demand in maintaining biodiversity is highlighted by

the argument that: "The demand for many species derives from their role in

supporting the production of marketed goods and services. The difficulty

in rangelands, as in many other systems, is that the prices of marketed

goods and services are rarely good proxies for their social opportunity

cost. It is generally recognized that externalities are both significant

and widespread, and that this complicates the valuation of biodiversity."

The World Bank document 'Supporting the Web of Life'4, in examining its

performance on biodiversity conservation, states that the World Bank

Group's mission of eradicating poverty for lasting results "depends on

humankind's ability to maintain a planet that can provide the

environmental services and functions upon which life and economic

development can be sustained." To address this in its development work in

the World Bank has to work towards "mainstreaming biodiversity and

especially the sustainable use and restoration of biodiversity, into

regular sustainable development operations and policy reforms."

Issues and Approaches

A number of key issues were highlighted during the first week of

discussions, which generated about 70 postings and a wealth of ideas.

These included the international nature of the biodiversity management

problem and the role of the global community; valuation of use and non-use

values associated with biodiversity and ecological services, species-based

vs. ecosystem values; specification of property rights and other incentive

and financial mechanisms; national and international legal issues

affecting conservation; and most overwhelmingly, the role of community

development and participation.

The discussants acknowledged the fact that conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity and/or ecosystems, dealing as it does with complex

systems, intricate linkages and disparate incidence of costs and benefits,

is fraught with problems. The international nature of the biodiversity

management problem was highlighted by the concerns with reference to the

role of the global community.

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 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 as an

approach to address the public good nature of biodiversity.

The discussions addressed many of these issues as well as noted various

successful examples and initiatives, balancing development and

conservation. Many participants emphasized the need to disseminate both

the positive and negative experiences widely as a means to further

understanding of the biodiversity conservation and use. Based on the high

degree of interest in and enthusiasm for these topics, three parallel

sessions were formed to examine in greater depth issues relating to a)

Community participation; b) Market mechanisms to address Biodiversity

related problems; and c) The role of international conventions and trade

agreements.

 

Parallel Session I: Biodiversity Conservation and Community Participation/

Development (Moderated by Tony Whitten, World Bank)

Seminar participants overwhelmingly supported the strong involvement of

local communities, including community associations and cooperatives. The

community, it was felt, was 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. 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", (i.e. the common plight of open access

resources).

It was observed that while linking biodiversity conservation with

community development was desirable it is not often compatible with many

conservation projects designed by international development agencies as

they focus almost exclusively on the technical aspects of biodiversity

management. 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'5, tracing ICDP

experience in Indonesia, was cited as outlining some of the difficulties

in giving conservation a "human face". A key prerequisite emphasized in

the report 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.

Key comments emphasized:

- Participation

Given that projects and protected area management often do restrict

resource use by communities, Gayatri Acharya wondered whether legal

recognition of communities ownership of common resources provided adequate

incentives to conserve and maintain biodiversity and was a better

alternative to enforcement systems.

Agi Kiss stressed that it was extremely important to ensure a common

understanding of the term 'community participation' - a 'buzzword and a

sacred cow'. Her views were that with participation, communities had

expectations of some form of benefits, but often those benefits do not

accrue at the speed or in the quantity hoped for. Some projects, therefore,

provide, what are hoped to be interim, concrete benefits as compensation

for the slow delivery of benefits, some, with the associated risk that

these 'gifts' can be seen as entitlements and which do not reflect the

scale of the likely future benefits. Asimalowo supported this

interpretation and added that at least four possible interpretations which

can be made include:

(i) communities participating in conservation-related decisions that

affect them; and/or

(ii) communities participating in carrying out conservation actions,

probably defined by

others, for which they expect payment or compensation; and/or

(iii) community groups or individuals participating in direct and economic

benefits derived

from conservation; and/or

(iv) individuals or communities dedicating land under their control to

conservation use with or without financial gain.

- Community-Driven Development

Tom Hodges pointed out the importance of allowing local people to develop

and implement their own projects. This is a growing movement in the Bank,

especially in the area of natural resource management. He indicated that

more information was available on the website

<www.onecountry.org/e111/e11113as.htm> The discussion noted that such a

mechanism implied ways of getting appropriate sums down to appropriate

levels without having money trickle through government bureaucracies,

therefore avoiding inefficiencies and wastage. Monitoring and assessment

were vital, regardless. Wisdom Dlamini from Swaziland informed the group

about the Shewula community, which has got involved with ecotourism

enterprises as part of a tri-national project.

- Assessment and Evaluation

Sama Gunawardhana attested to the above statement regarding better

assessment and evaluation of biodiversity projects. Tony Whitten critiqued

the lack of feedback on the impact of activities, such as, awareness

increasing and education initiatives of biodiversity projects for local

communities. He felt that while resources were being spent on such

activities, there was still a need for convincing evidence to show a

direct, positive impact on conservation and this information gap poses

serious questions for the planning of future awareness building programs.

The IUCN Commission on Education and Communication had a few examples

where good baseline data was collected before the activities, followed by

monitoring.

In addition, Tony Whitten mentioned that, as part of the preparations for

Rio Plus 10, the Bank was putting together a book on lessons learned in

GEF and other conservation projects. He, also, cited other sources of

lessons learned and assessments of success including the book 'Last

Stand'6, 'Parks and People'7, and Wells et al. 1999, 'Investing in

Biodiversity'5.

- Education and Information

Sama Gunawardhana argued that while communities have a vital role in

conservation, it is hard to get across the myriad values that biodiversity

has and suggests good environmental education that pervade across

conventional subjects as the key. However, it was felt that informal

education and the media were probably more suitable in getting the urgent

messages across. Change in standard teaching procedures, though necessary,

was more of a long-tern approach towards which initial steps could be

providing supplemental material in support of the formal school program

The discussion raised the important question - how fully informed are

'local communities' about the biodiversity around them? Obviously some are

very close to the land and the resources it supports, but others are not.

Global significance and benefits generally need to be communicated but

also the facilitators need to be aware of whatever local knowledge there

is. Asimalowo A. Abdullahi from Ibadan felt that education and awareness

are only part of the way to get people to participate in conservation

activities as a lot depended on the availability of opportunities for

livelihoods. However he also notes that there is no one 'right' way to do

business and the involvement of policy makers, local communities and other

concerned groups is essential to understand the right mix of incentives

for sustainable conservation and development.

- Traditional Management and Cultural Diversity

Guillermo Rodriguez-Navarro contrasted 'austerity' and 'poverty', and

argued that the developed world has found considerable

value in indigenous knowledge and the resulting patterns of consumption.

Based on experience, he notes that it was most useful to take into

consideration methods of indigenous traditional environmental management

with special attention to the revitalization of indigenous social

structures and the enhancement of traditional knowledge systems. Tony

Whitten concurred with his observation that traditional management schemes

often include sanctions on those who break the community rules, thus the

importance of allowing the traditional social structures themselves to

reform. But the down side was that some indigenous (but increasingly less

traditional) groups are more than willing to resurrect their rights to

resources, but less keen on balancing this with the requisite

responsibilities, with the result that sustainability remains a distant

dream.

Elizabeth Reichel raised the issue of cultural diversity alongside

biodiversity. It was felt that there would indeed be natural synergies

between the two, but only if the local communities are allowed full

participation. Need for felt for relevant methodologies for valuing the

cognomens, knowledge, symbolic capital, etc of the indigenous peoples, or

protocols to negotiate, respect or acknowledge these; this area was also

regarded as of particular concern at Global Biodiversity Forums and at

Conferences of the Parties to the CBD.

- Costs of Consensus Building

Tom Yuill raised the issue of costs of developing community consensus,

prior to engaging the community in biodiversity conservation, given that

communities (with different meanings to different people) are

heterogeneous groupings. Wolfram Dressler and Michael Brown responded with

examples of complex situations and suggested consensus-building toolkits.

Michael Brown added that the ICDP concept, while not flawed in essence,

needs to be worked out with communities as partners from the outset,

explaining, perhaps, the paucity of success stories.

Parallel Session II: Market Mechanisms to Promote Biodiversity

Conservation and its Sustainable Use (Moderated by Frank Vorhies and

Andrea Bagri, IUCN)

Many of the participants highlighted the need for communities to benefit

directly from the conservation of biodiversity, in order to ensure they

have the incentive to continue with conservation rather than degrade the

resource base. However, it was noted that these benefits must be linked to

conservation activities, and must be sustained over a long-term time

horizon. Thus, the emphasis on project-based financing, which lasts for 2-

3 years does little to create a solid incentives structure for

conservation was misguided.

The group also enumerated important causes of biodiversity loss including

unregulated/open access to resources, incentives to undermine

biodiversity, imbalance between population size and resource availability,

production and consumption patterns in the developed world, inadequate

government policy and absence of community representation in planning,

implementation and monitoring. This last point was brought out a by a

number of participants as a key missing ingredient of many incentive

programs. Successful incentives, many argued, must be built around sold

community participation.

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 were some examples offered

by participants of ways in which to provide incentives for market protection of biodiversity.

Addressing this issue of sustainability, Andrea Bagri asked interesting questions that

offered further food for thought:

* What types of sustainable financing mechanisms can be built such that they provide

incentives for the conservation of biodiversity?

* How can the private sector contribute to this process? The private sector is inherently

financially sustainable - it is in business to stay in business. Would such a model be a

useful framework to analyze biodiversity conservation issues?

* Incentive measures are clearly bound to the community and culture in which they are

developed and implemented...they must remain appropriate for this community and

culture. But communities and cultures are not static. What mechanisms are needed to

ensure that the incentives developed today for biodiversity conservation remain useful

and appropriate tomorrow? If not, checks should ensure that inappropriate incentives

are dismantled.

 

Parallel Session III: Role of International Conventions and Trade Agreements in

Biodiversity Conservation and Use (Moderated by Manuel Rodriguez, Andean Center

for Sustainable Development, Colombia)

- Convention on Biological Diversity

Gayatri Acharya and Nalin Kishor set the context for the discussion with a few background

facts. They pointed out that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which came into

force on 29 December, 1993, was seen as testimony to the increasing global concern

over biodiversity loss and a recognition of the need for coordinated action towards its

conservation. More than 160 countries have ratified the convention. They feel that if the

Convention is to succeed as an international agreement, it must create the mechanisms

and support systems necessary to transform this expression of concern into an effective

instrument to conserve the World's biodiversity. These mechanisms must address the

local and global facets of the biodiversity problem and recognize the fact that much of the

world's biodiversity is found in countries and regions too poor to invest in conservation.

Under the Convention, the burden of these conservation efforts to provide global benefits

is in fact noted.

- International Agreements and Issues

There are several other international conventions, such as the RAMSAR Convention of

Wetlands, the Bonn Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, which support various aspects of the CBD. It was noted that the existence of

multiple conventions necessitated cooperation and close links between institutions

effecting them in order to focus on priorities and avoid contradictory initiatives. Also, given

the interlinkages between the different global threats, sound policy recommends

cohesion in efforts to combat them. The effectiveness of these Conventions in addressing

the direct (overexploitation) and indirect (habitat loss) causes of biodiversity loss was

questioned. Issues of Intellectual Property Rights were raised and the importance of

relevant, precise and updated information to support the implementation of all conventions

was noted.

Manuel Rodriguez highlighted the perceived stagnation in the implementation of these

global agreements. This stems from poor compliance by the developed world on key

issues of the non-binding Rio Agreements as well as climate change and Biodiversity

conservation, which has alienated a number of developing countries. Developing

countries were further constrained in providing attention by their vulnerability to a number

of economic crises in the recent past.

- Global Environment Organization (GEO)

Lack of cooperation, inefficiency and the generally poor performance of the global

community in protecting environmental resources were the reasons cited to support the

creation of a global environmental organization. The debate between Dan Esty of Yale

and Calestous Juma of Harvard (and former Executive Secretary of the CBD) provided

various arguments for and against the creation of yet another international organization,

examining issues such as the role of such an organization in addressing issues of

national concern and the added value of a global environment body to the existing array

of international conventions and agreements.

The 'pros' were thought to be:

* Significant number of pressing pollution control and natural resource management issues

are transboundary in nature and cannot be adequately addressed by compliance with

national/domestic environmental laws and regulations

* The current suite of global treaties, conventions, etc system is dysfunctional. Consolidating

a number of existing UN agencies with environmental responsibilities into a streamlined

new body with a decentralized structure represents a better approach. It will contribute to

consistency of policies and a harmonization of standards

* The existing treaties give lip service to serious issues, cover for governments and offer

little to citizens. A well functioning international environmental regime would address these

concerns

On the other hand, the 'cons' were identified as:

* Most "global" aspects of environmental and natural resource management are already

covered in the UNCED Conventions on Climate Change, Desertification and Biological

Diversity. Improving the effectiveness of existing agreements and voluntary collaboration

may be easier and more effective than creating a new body.

* The feasibility, probability and costs of agreeing on a new instrument and then of

implementing that agreement are open questions. Devoting energies to the formation of a

GEO may well be used as an excuse for avoiding more effective actions.

* Many developing nations cannot meet their obligations under various environmental

treaties partly because the richer nations have not honored their commitments to assist

them with technology and finances. There is no guarantee that a new agency will perform

better in

this regard.

* Many of the expressed concerns about global environmental problems have

local/national origins and repercussions. Much of this involves domestic efforts to cut

pollution, protect wildlife, and conserve soils and freshwater. But many developing

countries concerned with national sovereignty strongly feel that these are internal affairs,

not the subject for international laws set by a GEO.

It was concluded that this debate was not an easy one to resolve and that the next weeks

and months would likely see heating up of the discussions.

Additional Noteworthy Issues

- Valuation and Ecosystem Approaches

Angela Andrade raised an issue that struck a chord with many participants; keeping in

sight the principles of ecosystem management. The Malawi principles, which support

an ecosystem approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and a

number of transboundary projects have been initiated in order to capture the ecological

(as well as economic and in many cases, political) benefits of transboundary

cooperation were cited. These efforts were thought to provide insights for implementing

elements endorsed by international conventions.

In the context of valuation, there were several suggestions that the focus should be

on estimating ecosystem services rather than only on 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 were deemed as a question for

both ecologists and economists to grapple with. Therefore, it was seen as increasingly

evident that the focus of valuation studies would have to move towards ecosystem

functions rather than the willingness to pay for species preservation if the objective

were to capture the value of life-support services performed by natural capital.

- Legal Issues in Biodiversity Conservation

Rules and regulations, it was considered, at best should promote conservation and at

the least should not hinder it. Two examples posted by participants deserved 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.

Participants agreed that it was critical to examine how laws could be modified to

remove their anti-conservation bias and to examine how laws might be further

strengthened so that stakeholders are made fully aware of their rights. Protected

area networks provided real protection only when there were 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.

- Balancing socio-economic needs and conservation priorities

John Newby recommended a recent paper in 'Biodiversity and Conservation'8 that

questions whether it is indeed possible to address both the socio-economic needs

of local communities and the conservation of biodiversity. This contention could not

be dismissed, but under certain conditions, socio-economic and conservation needs

may be balanced even if such cases were typically exceptions rather than the rule.

The question of how socio-economic and conservation needs should be balanced

was considered crucial for organizations such as the World Bank where the primary

focus is on poverty reduction. Through numerous examples, participants noted that

the goals of poverty alleviation, livelihood enhancement and biodiversity

conservation couldn't be met without understanding the needs, capacity, knowledge

and aspirations of local communities. Tony Whitten pointed out that, in fact, there was

little point in going ahead with conservation activities if communities were not on

board and that approaches such as that used in the ICDPs would be more successful

if community participation was ensured from the start.

The range of participation was verified by the examples of community participation

described by the discussions. Many of the participants expressed frustration with

communities that appear to want development and not conservation. Others

supported the view that communities need assurances that they will receive

benefits beyond the life of the project if they are to be truly cooperative and actively

involved in conservation activities. The alternative suggested by John Newby was

to scale up conservation and development work to a much greater extent such that

the trade-offs and choices are made across a broader socio-political and ecological

space. The practicalities of such a path, however, would need to be explored.

Notes:

1 Statement of the 15th Global Biodiversity Forum to the 5th meeting of the Conference

of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. May 2000. Nairobi Kenya.

Available at http://www.gbf.ch/sessions/gbf15/speech.pdf

2 Perrings, Charles. 2000. 'The Economics of Biodiversity Loss and Agricultural

Development in Low Income Countries', in Lee D., and Barret C. (eds.), Tradeoffs and

synergies: Agricultural Intensification, Economic Development and the Environment,

Wallingford, CABI. In press.

3 Perrings, Charles and Brian Walker. 'Optimal Biodiversity Conservation in

Rangelands', Working Paper available at:

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

4 World Bank. April 2000. 'Supporting the Web of Life: The World Bank and Biodiversity -

A Portfolio Update (1988 - 1999), Washington D. C.

5 Wells, Michael, et al. 1999. Investing in Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia's Integrated

Conservation and Development Projects', World Bank, Washington D.C.

6 Kramer, Randall et al (eds.). 1997. Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of

Tropical Biodiversity, Oxford University Press, New York

7 Wells, M., K. Brandon, and L. Hannah. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected

Area Management with Local Communities, World Bank, WWF, and USAID,

Washington D.C.

8 Attwell and Cotteril. 2000. 'Postmodernism and African conservation Science' in

Biodiversity and Conservation, 9: 559-577

 

* Useful World Bank Websites

Forestry: http://www.worldbank.org/forestry

Biodiversity: http://www.worldbank.org/biodiversity

World Bank Institute, Rural and Natural Resources Management Group:

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/wbien/rural.html

International Workshop on Community based Natural Resource Management:

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/conatrem

* Contact Information

Gayatri Acharya <gacharya@worldbank.org>, Nalin Kishor

<nkishor@worldbank.org>, or Arati Belle <abelle@worldbank.org>,

World Bank Institute

1818H street

Washington D. C. 20433.

December 10/2000/World Bank's environmental complaince consultation: Two Week Summary

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:59:17 -0500

Subject: [compliance] Two week summary

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "Michelle Keene" <mlkeene@attglobal.net>

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Hello seminar participants,

Our seminar has been going on now for two weeks. Since we have only one

more week to go, I thought this would be a good time to try to summarize

and highlight some of the key points that have been made so far. Before I

begin, I'd like to thank all of you for each of your contributions. Without your valuable time and insights, we could not have such an enlightened discussion. As we begin our last week of the seminar, I look forward to hearing from more of you as well as continuing to hear from those who have already contributed. As a side note, I have noticed that there has been very little discussion that has focused on compliance and enforcement issues of the forestry sector. I'd like to take this opportunity to especially encourage those participants with a forestry background to join our discussion--we'd like to hear from you! Now, our summary:

1. One of the first topics that we discussed was the concept of punitive

penalties and fines as a means of encouraging environmental compliance.

The "recapturing economic benefit" penalty seemed to generate much

interest and discussion. Such a penalty includes the cost of the economic

benefit the firm would have gained or saved when they violated the law.

The idea behind this type of fine is that a fine won't work if the firm is

financially still ahead after paying it. In short, the value of a

financial penalty needs to be determined in terms of motivation for a

company to comply. This system has proven quite successful in the United

States and other countries, including Israel which is progressing with

developing a similar approach.

2. Our discussion on fines and penalties as a means to compliance has

focused on the issue of fines simply becoming "user fees." Many argued

that as long as the fine was too low that firms would pay it and attribute

it as an "operating cost." At the same time, we heard the argument that

fines should only be set to equal the cost of damage done and not more

than this.

3. We have heard about the successes of judicial activism in India and the

power of the courts in achieving compliance with environmental goals and

statues--in particular, the banning of old cars from capital city's

center. At the same time, it was recognized that the power of the courts

in this regard are dependent on a mature legal system as well as access to the courts. In addition, it was acknowledged that scientific techniques need to be available to meet the requisite standards of proof in many criminal courts.

4. In terms of addressing specific environmental problems in the context

of compliance and enforcement, there has been much interest in transport

and mobile sources of pollution. Vehicle standards at the manufacturing

stage, as well as maintenance and inspection programs of vehicles on the

road (including emission standards) were sited as two elements of an

effective compliance program for transport. The type of fuel used as well

as taxes, charges and fines on fuels and pollution were also discussed as

possible mechanisms to ensure compliance. It is important, however, to

levy the right tax on the right fuel. For example, we have learned from India about how diesel was subsidized while at the same time trying to introduce unleaded gasoline, which was more expensive than diesel, and therefore less desirable for consumers.

5. There has also been much interest in stakeholder involvement and

consensus building as a means to developing a "culture of compliance,"

especially with reagrd to small polluters (households and smaller

industries). International experience shows us that compliance with

environmental policies often depends on the extent to which lower levels

of government and industry as well as other stake holders view the goals

and objectives of the policies as feasible and fair. In this sense,

building a consensus among a range of stake holders is a prerequisite for

achieving environmental compliance. We heard about a couple of cases where these approaches are successfully being implemented, including the work of the World Commission on Dams as well as the Environment and Development Council in Bahia, Brazil. In these cases, major sectors of society including government, industry, and environmental organizations/civil society have a stake and play acrucial role in negotiating and determining environmental policies, thus facilitating compliance.

6. There has also been much interest expressed in the power of public

persuasion. Several examples (Holland, the United States and Singapore)

have been mentioned where it is culturally very embarrassing "to be

caught" in the act of violating environmental laws. We also heard about a

very interesting case in New Zealand where concerned citizens are successfully stopping a battery hen enterprise from expanding in an ecologically significant area. Also, may companies are now required to submit environmental performance information to their public securities officials so that public investors may be better informed.

7. We also have had some very insightful discussions on what motivates

industry to comply with environmental laws. We heard that most firms will

assess the risk of noncompliance in terms of liability (e.g. whether the

"cost" of complying will burden their bottom line profit). If firms are focusing on the bottom line and pollution does not pay, then the more focused on a profit the firm is, the better. We also heard the converse

of this argument that firms are only focused on short-term goals and

profits and not on long-term environmental risks or expenditures.

Agreement was reached, however, in that most seem to think that an effective enforcement program includes frequent monitoring of compliance with environmental regulations. Such a program necessitates self monitoring on behalf of industry (mandated by law rather than voluntary) as well as basic inspector training for regulators.

8. We have also had some very good recent discussion on new methods of manufacturing and alternative technologies that are being used to stimulate compliance. Such an approach is also often referred to as cleaner production and waste minimization. Under these programs, many firms have taken the incentive to change the way they manufacture (including no-cost actions such as better "house-keeping" in a facility) that results in less pollution and less waste to treat, as well as using less raw materials. Such approaches offer excellent opportunities for reducing pollution in the industrial process, as well as increasing production efficiencies and cutting operating costs.

9. Finally, we have most recently been discussing an innovative tool in

encouraging environmental compliance--greening of the supply chain.

Supply chain environmental management can be defined as efforts by global

firms to encourage the use of environmental criteria for the products and

processes of their suppliers. Large firms (such as the export focused

ones in Russia that were mentioned) will most often be responsive rather

than the smaller firms that do not have the same external pressures. We

heard about how the United States uses this approach as a last resort

in getting firms to comply by making them ineligible for government contracts, such as purchasing commodities (e.g. timber for a wood products plant) from US public lands.

December 15/2000/World Bank's environmental compliance consultation

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:17:01 +0300

From: "P.V.Kasyanov" <>

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: [compliance] Re: "Russian view"

Dear colleagues,

I am Pavel Kasyanov, environmental economist (to be brief) from Moscow.

I’d like to use the last opportunity to contribute to this interesting discussion.

In my brief intervention that was "provoked" by discussing some aspects of the Russian realities I’d like to touch only several aspects of the topic. And even to a greater degree I was stimulated by Birgitte’s and Mr. Sridhar’s messages on mass media and environmental education issues (also I impressed by Greg Hayes and Lucio Munoz messages and others which I have no possibility to list now).

Ends of millenniums are not the best periods for discussions in terms of spare time for many people (I am afraid I am not an exclusion).

Excuse me please for some theoretical views I tried to reflect and also my far from perfection English.

In the Russian environmental and natural resource economy circles there is a firm belief that emissions of pollutants in the environment is a specific kind of nature use, use of a specific natural resource which is called "assimilative or carrying capacity of the environment". Use of this resource should be charged based on its economic evaluation. Such an evaluation could be "derived from" costs of achieving environmental standards (which in Russia correspond or are assumed to be equivalents (or proxies) to assimilative capacity) in a certain region, territory, municipality. Certain state and municipal bodies should be authorized to possess, and sell permits for emitting certain amounts of pollutants. These bodies should make preliminary assessment and evaluation of an assimilative capacity and then fix a price (starting price for an auction) of a permit/quota (it is similar to charge rate fixing) or arrange an auction. In both cases it can be allowed for those have bought permits initially sell them at a secondary market. Rights for assimilative capacity should be distributed between federal, regional and municipal level. Rather extensive rights (maybe for majority of pollutants) should be given to local authorities.

In the prospect I hope communities will be able to manage and control all these processes : economic evaluation , issuing quotas (permits) , auctioning; collecting money etc.

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDs (at least in the Russian context, I’ll try to explain - why) can be treated as a reflection of environmental need of a society Environmental standards (see below description of the Russian system of standards called in Russian "NORMATIVES") supplemented with appropriate instruments, resources and policies to achieve them can be considered acquire the nature of social demand. Environmental demand can be described as a system of environmental standards supported by a set of methods, instruments and resources (economic, financial, legal, institutional) to achieve them.

While resources assigned by a society are inadequate to the objectives of environmental solutions it is possible to conclude that social environmental needs are underdeveloped and a social need structure is not adequate. So, the notion of environmental needs allows to define "sustainable development" more precisely, i.e. as the development of a society that meets needs of current and future generations by generating a rational social need structure. By the term "rational" I mean an optimal balance of spiritual and material needs as well as environmental and other ones. Among the other factors, identification of such balance implies dissemination of "new" (mostly forgotten) knowledge about a human being, its spiritual, informational, energetic and physical "construction and working principles". This knowledge inculcated in human consciousness in early childhood will alter a world outlook and consumption mode of a new generation.

Generating and evolving of environmental needs implies that a society requires certain environmental conditions to be defined through a system of environmental standards. Compliance with these standards will secure reproduction of all renewable environment components.

In Russia there were fixed rather high environmental standards as a reflection of an objective environmental needs of a society (of course these standards were calculated by experts in this field). However, there have not been enough resources to achieve the standards, i.e. real social demand has been much lower than it is needed to invest in environmental protection , i.e. to provide meeting objective environmental needs.

I’d like also to mention here different organizations at the state level (governmental ministries, committees), at international level (GEF, WWF, UNEP etc.), all kinds of NGOs. We can treat that they act on behalf of a society and should function as factors that are to shift the environmental demand curve up. They should do this on the one hand directly via financing concrete projects on biodiversity conservation, on the other hand - through educational programs, mass-media (i.e. through changing the society needs structure).

However, we need special information policy including all levels ( from Global to local) embracing education system and mass media.

Reforming of the education system (content and form) and also mass media should be based on the new scientific understanding of the civilization development as a part of evolution of biosphere, the planet and Universe. Such scientific understanding should come from new scientific paradigm versus so called Newton-Cartesian one based on Democrit’s atomism, Euclide’s geometry, Newton’s mechanics and Decart’s methodology.

I would only notice that even more important factor is a voluntary changing of people’s subconscious but it is a separate topic which can not be stated in this paper. Our task is just to make all the necessary information accessible for all people and able to compete with other information which is in most cases aggressive and destroying.

In any case information policy is the main driving force to solve environmental problems. As for education program I would suggest myself together with my Russian and foreign colleagues to develop educational programs based on the ABOVE new scientific paradigm.

A little bit more concrete information on the Russian env. standard’s and pollution charges systems that I promised to place "below".

In Russia three-tired charge system exists historically. It is a very symptomatic story about Russia where many things are very good and nice in design but very bad, poor or even ugly when are put in practice. This approach seems to be very different from the western approach which is often practicable from the very beginning i.e. design which is not so ambitious but allows to reach some concrete (though may be modest but determined by designers) objectives. Russia intended through the charge system to reach very strict environmental standards (that are usually stricter than western analogues) , Russia tried to embrace all pollutants and all sources. Also Russia imposed/introduced in fact a three-tired system where the base rate of charges corresponded to emission within standards level, 5-fold rates were established for pollution within temporarily agreed limits (but above the previous standards level) and 25-fold rates were fixed for emissions above the limits. Correlation between rates for different pollutants was fairly established based on their comparative toxicity.

In this system theoretically any enterprise got an incentive to reduce pollution sooner or later because even if the abatement costs were higher than 25-fold rate payments (although initially it was almost impossible case because of high level of the first pre-inflation generation of charge rates) for a certain period penalties total for several years become higher than abatement costs. So, incentive was an issue of time if not of proper charge rate. In principle it was a good combination of economic and administrative measures where the latter should serve for the former in the process of achieving firm environmental standards.

However, the major factor is information in all aspects.

Thank you for your patience.

Best regards,

P.V.Kasyanov

December 17/2000/World Bank's environmental compliance consultation: concluding remarks

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 02:12:41 -0500

Subject: [compliance] Concluding remarks (resent)

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "Michelle Keene" <mlkeene@attglobal.net>

Dear Seminar Participants,

We have come to the end of our three week seminar. Before I try to pull

all of our thoughts together, I would like to thank every one of you for

your active participation. As I said before, without each of your

valuable remarks, we could not have had such an enlightened discussion.

It has been an honor to moderate such an insightful forum. I hope that

all of you found the discussion and exchange of ideas that has occurred

over the last three weeks helpful in working towards solving issues of

environmental compliance and enforcement in your countries and localities.

Achieving a "culture of compliance" certainly does not happen with one

seminar, but rather it is a complex process which takes time and skills

to develop and establish. On behalf of the World Bank, I hope that our

discussion here can at least provide some direction and focus for beginning

to put the various elements in place that encourage compliance.

Rather than summarizing this week's discussion, to follow is an overall

conclusion of the key issues of the seminar. Out the outset of this

seminar we stated that our goal was to provide a forum to identify the

essential elements of strengthening environmental compliance. I have

tried to frame the issues in this context such that it ight be useful for

considering future capacity building activities. I have also tried

highlight the issues where there was felt a need for further exploration.

Finally, we would be grateful if each of you would please take the time to

complete the evaluation of the seminar which has been recently posted. To

follow is our conclusion:

Environmental norms and regulations are an essential foundation in

developing management strategies towards controlling pollution and

resource degradation. However, an environmental regulatory regime is not

an end in itself. In order for regulations to be of value, they must be

complimented with compliance--getting the regulated community (industry,

households, farmers, foresters, etc.) to fully implement the requirements.

Without compliance, environmental requirements will not achieve the

desired results and goals. Compliance does not automatically happen once

regulations are legislated and issued; rather, it is achieved through

targeted efforts that

encourage behavioral changes by polluters.

Consensus was reached that achieving a "culture of environmental

compliance" is a complex process involving various stakeholders and the

application of various tools--both traditional and innovative. Traditional

approaches include enforcement programs where violators are identified and

action (such as monetary penalties and court proceedings) is taken to

bring violators into compliance. Innovative approaches promote compliance

through incentives and education. While most traditional regulatory

measures focus on punishing polluting firms, innovative approaches reward

model firms by encouraging long-term changes. International experience

demonstrates that both approaches are needed for successful compliance

with environmental norms and requirements.

In this light, the following components have been identified as key to

strengthening environmental compliance:

1. Setting implementable yet challenging goals.

The first step in fostering compliance is to ensure that the environmental

requirements themselves are implementable and enforceable. The laws need

to be clear and practical and provide the necessary legal authorities

(including an effective court system) for enforcement. Too stringent

requirements imposed too soon can undermine credibility of the regulatory

framework. Involving various stakeholders often results in making

regulations realistic and achievable.

2. Stakeholder involvement.

Consensus has also been reached that involving the regulated community as

well as the non regulated community (the general public and

nongovernmental organizations) in developing environmental requirements

helps build support and ensure compliance. Such a consensus building

approach also publicizes requirements at an early stage, which encourages

compliance.

3. Promoting compliance in the regulated community through the media and

other mass communications.

Broad consensus was reached that environmental information dissemination

is crucial for successful compliance and that the media has an important

role to play here. Environmental information is an essential basis for

making informed decisions about managing pollution and without it

enforcement is likely to remain weak. Information also provides a means

for educating the public about environmental risks and placing pressure on

governments. As one participant stated, a supportive, knowledgeable

public can be an enforcer's best ally.

4. Decentralizing responsibility for achieving environmental goals

Consensus was reached on the importance of delegating responsibility to

the local level, as they are most familiar with their local environmental

issues and capacity for dealing with them. A lack of political or

administrative commitment on the local level also hinders compliance with

policies imposed from above.

5. Promoting compliance through the application of innovative mechanisms

Achieving environmental compliance involves motivating the regulated

community to comply and removing obstacles that prevent compliance. In

this context, we have heard about several innovative approaches to

improving environmental compliance. These tools involve partnerships

between government, industry, and the public and offer firms the win-win

prospect of increased productivity and competitiveness. They include:

stakeholder involvement and consensus building, cleaner production and

pollution prevention, greening of the supply chain, certification and

codes of conduct, and the use of performance bonds in the forestry sector.

While agreement was reached that these approaches are not substitutes for

a regulatory system, they seem to be proving helpful in fostering

environmentally sustainable development practices.

6. Monitoring compliance through inspections

Monitoring compliance--collecting and analyzing information on the status

of the regulated community--is one of the most important elements of an

environmental regulatory program. Compliance information may be obtained

by site inspections carried out by inspectors, self-monitoring and self

reporting by the regulated community, citizen complaints, and monitoring

environmental conditions near a facility. Monitoring is essential for

identifying and correcting violations.

7. Responding to violations

We have heard from several participants that experience demonstrates that

many will not comply with the law unless noncompliance has clear

consequences. Enforcement seeks to correct violations and induce

compliance by showing that the government is willing to act in case of

noncompliance. In this regard, much interest has been expressed in the

use of punitive penalties and fines. The "recapturing economic benefit"

penalty generated much interest. It seems though that a consensus is

lacking as to how much is "enough" for a polluter to pay to deter

noncompliance.

8. Clarifying roles and responsibilities

We have heard that environmental regulatory regimes often involve many

different government agencies, citizen groups, and non governmental

organizations. A key element in any environmental strategy is to define

the roles and responsibilities of the groups involved--for example, how

responsibilities for monitoring and enforcement should be divided among

the different levels of government.

December 28/2000/Invitation to the Globalization Discussion

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:32:55 +0100

To: munoz1@sprint.ca

From: Tim Erickson

Subject: Globalization Discussion

My name is Tim Erickson of St. Paul, Minnesota - USA. I moderate an

e-mail discussion group (Politalk) that deals with a variety of

social and political issues. We are planning a discussion on the

issue of Economic Globalization that will begin on January 2, 2001

(next week) and last two weeks.

While scanning the internet, I ran across your name in conjunction

with this issue and thought that you might be able to

contribute/participate in our discussion.

To increase the quality and depth of our discussions, we like to

invite new voices with thoughts or experience relevant to our

discussion. Having participated in this type of discussion in the

past, it is our hope that you might share your thoughts OR

experiences with our group.

For more information about our group, please visit our web site at:

http://www.politalk.com

Our group, Politalk, currently has about 100 members that range from

journalists and public policy makers to concerned citizens. We divide

the entire group into 2-3 smaller groups for the purpose of the

discussion, to keep things more personal and manageable.

If you think that you might be able to join us for a couple of days

or two weeks, please let me know. If you know anyone else who might

be interested in participating, feel free to forward this invitation.

Thanks for your patience,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

December 30/2000/Invitation to the Globalization Conference

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 16:47:04 +0100

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

From: Tim Erickson <>

Subject: Re: Globalization Discussion

Dear Lucio Munoz:

Thanks very much for your interest in our group. I'll add your name

to our mailing list myself, if you have any questions or problems

please contact me directly.

I look very much forward to your participation.

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

>Dear Mr. Erickson, please receive my warm greetings. Thanks for your

>invitation. It will be an honor to participate and exchange ideas with your

>group on this subject. Please, proceed as appropriate.

>Sincerely yours;

>Lucio Munoz

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

>

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

>From: "Tim Erickson" <>

>To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

>Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 2:32 PM

>Subject: Globalization Discussion

>

>

>> My name is Tim Erickson of St. Paul, Minnesota - USA. I moderate an

>> e-mail discussion group (Politalk) that deals with a variety of

>> social and political issues. We are planning a discussion on the

>> issue of Economic Globalization that will begin on January 2, 2001

>> (next week) and last two weeks.

>>

>> While scanning the internet, I ran across your name in conjunction

>> with this issue and thought that you might be able to

>> contribute/participate in our discussion.

>>

>> To increase the quality and depth of our discussions, we like to

>> invite new voices with thoughts or experience relevant to our

>> discussion. Having participated in this type of discussion in the

>> past, it is our hope that you might share your thoughts OR

>> experiences with our group.

>>

>> For more information about our group, please visit our web site at:

>>

>> http://www.politalk.com

>>

>> Our group, Politalk, currently has about 100 members that range from

>> journalists and public policy makers to concerned citizens. We divide

>> the entire group into 2-3 smaller groups for the purpose of the

>> discussion, to keep things more personal and manageable.

>>

>> If you think that you might be able to join us for a couple of days

>> or two weeks, please let me know. If you know anyone else who might

>> be interested in participating, feel free to forward this invitation.

>>

>> Thanks for your patience,

>>

>> Tim Erickson

>> Politalk Moderator

December 17/2000/World Bank's Environmental Compliance consultation: Concluding remarks

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: Re: [compliance] Concluding remarks (resent)

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:02:41 -0800

Dear Friends, I was a pleasure to participate in this seminar and see how

the practical issues of compliance are actually being faced and/or

implemented in different places. However, I got a general feeling that part

of the implementation problem the difficulties raised by these practical

issues of compliance rest on a failure, may be not on purpose, to match

every practical issue of compliance with its equivalent theoretical

framework from a system point of view to see what could be the expected

short-comings even before implementation. We all know that practice without

the guidance of theory may be off the mark and we may not even know it as

well as that the theory without practice may only be a cute ideal paradigm.

I suggest that the next seminar should be on the theoretical frameworks

available over there to frame and undertand issues of compliance and system

failures, and their rational. This may show perhaps simpler ways to tacking

apparently complex issues in practice or could help to make some practices

already in place more efficient and perhaps more replicable.

My warm greetings to all.

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

From: "Michelle Keene"

To: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation"

<compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 11:12 PM

Subject: [compliance] Concluding remarks (resent)

 

> Dear Seminar Participants,

> We have come to the end of our three week seminar. Before I try to pull

> all of our thoughts together, I would like to thank every one of you for

> your active participation. As I said before, without each of your

> valuable remarks, we could not have had such an enlightened discussion.

> It has been an honor to moderate such an insightful forum. I hope that

> all of you found the discussion and exchange of ideas that has occurred

> over the last three weeks helpful in working towards solving issues of

> environmental

> compliance and enforcement in your countries and localities. Achieving a

> "culture of compliance" certainly does not happen with one seminar, but

> rather it is a complex process which takes time and skills to develop and

> establish. On behalf of the World Bank, I hope that our discussion here

> can at least provide some direction and focus for beginning to put the

> various elements in place that encourage compliance.

>

> Rather than summarizing this week's discussion, to follow is an overall

> conclusion of the key issues of the seminar. Out the outset of this

> seminar we stated that our goal was to provide a forum to identify the

> essential elements of strengthening environmental compliance. I have

> tried to frame the issues in this context such that it ight be useful for

> considering future capacity building activities. I have also tried

> highlight the issues where there was felt a need for further exploration.

> Finally, we would be grateful if each of you would please take the time to

> complete the evaluation of the seminar which has been recently posted. To

> follow is our conclusion:

>

> Environmental norms and regulations are an essential foundation in

> developing management strategies towards controlling pollution and

> resource degradation. However, an environmental regulatory regime is not

> an end in itself. In order for regulations to be of value, they must be

> complimented with compliance--getting the regulated community (industry,

> households, farmers, foresters, etc.) to fully implement the requirements.

> Without compliance, environmental requirements will not achieve the

> desired results and goals. Compliance does not automatically happen once

> regulations are legislated and issued; rather, it is achieved through

> targeted efforts that

> encourage behavioral changes by polluters.

>

> Consensus was reached that achieving a "culture of environmental

> compliance" is a complex process involving various stakeholders and the

> application of various tools--both traditional and innovative. Traditional

> approaches include enforcement programs where violators are identified and

> action (such as monetary penalties and court proceedings) is taken to

> bring violators into compliance. Innovative approaches promote compliance

> through incentives and education. While most traditional regulatory

> measures focus on punishing polluting firms, innovative approaches reward

> model firms by encouraging long-term changes. International experience

> demonstrates that both approaches are needed for successful compliance

> with environmental norms and requirements.

>

> In this light, the following components have been identified as key to

> strengthening environmental compliance:

>

> 1. Setting implementable yet challenging goals.

> The first step in fostering compliance is to ensure that the environmental

> requirements themselves are implementable and enforceable. The laws need

> to be clear and practical and provide the necessary legal authorities

> (including an effective court system) for enforcement. Too stringent

> requirements imposed too soon can undermine credibility of the regulatory

> framework. Involving various stakeholders often results in making

> regulations realistic and achievable.

>

> 2. Stakeholder involvement.

> Consensus has also been reached that involving the regulated community as

> well as the non regulated community (the general public and

> nongovernmental organizations) in developing environmental requirements

> helps build support and ensure compliance. Such a consensus building

> approach also publicizes requirements at an early stage, which encourages

> compliance.

>

> 3. Promoting compliance in the regulated community through the media and

> other mass communications.

> Broad consensus was reached that environmental information dissemination

> is crucial for successful compliance and that the media has an important

> role to play here. Environmental information is an essential basis for

> making informed decisions about managing pollution and without it

> enforcement is likely to remain weak. Information also provides a means

> for educating the public about environmental risks and placing pressure on

> governments. As one participant stated, a supportive, knowledgeable

> public can be an enforcer's best ally.

>

> 4. Decentralizing responsibility for achieving environmental goals

> Consensus was reached on the importance of delegating responsibility to

> the local level, as they are most familiar with their local environmental

> issues and capacity for dealing with them. A lack of political or

> administrative commitment on the local level also hinders compliance with

> policies imposed from above.

>

> 5. Promoting compliance through the application of innovative mechanisms

> Achieving environmental compliance involves motivating the regulated

> community to comply and removing obstacles that prevent compliance. In

> this context, we have heard about several innovative approaches to

> improving environmental compliance. These tools involve partnerships

> between government, industry, and the public and offer firms the win-win

> prospect of increased productivity and competitiveness. They include:

> stakeholder involvement and consensus building, cleaner production and

> pollution prevention, greening of the supply chain, certification and

> codes of conduct, and the use of performance bonds in the forestry sector.

> While agreement was reached that these approaches are not substitutes for

> a regulatory system, they seem to be proving helpful in fostering

> environmentally sustainable development practices.

>

> 6. Monitoring compliance through inspections

> Monitoring compliance--collecting and analyzing information on the status

> of the regulated community--is one of the most important elements of an

> environmental regulatory program. Compliance information may be obtained

> by site inspections carried out by inspectors, self-monitoring and self

> reporting by the regulated community, citizen complaints, and monitoring

> environmental conditions near a facility. Monitoring is essential for

> identifying and correcting violations.

>

> 7. Responding to violations

> We have heard from several participants that experience demonstrates that

> many will not comply with the law unless noncompliance has clear

> consequences. Enforcement seeks to correct violations and induce

> compliance by showing that the government is willing to act in case of

> noncompliance. In this regard, much interest has been expressed in the

> use of punitive penalties and fines. The "recapturing economic benefit"

> penalty generated much interest. It seems though that a consensus is

> lacking as to how much is "enough" for a polluter to pay to deter

> noncompliance.

>

> 8. Clarifying roles and responsibilities

> We have heard that environmental regulatory regimes often involve many

> different government agencies, citizen groups, and non governmental

> organizations. A key element in any environmental strategy is to define

> the roles and responsibilities of the groups involved--for example, how

> responsibilities for monitoring and enforcement should be divided among

> the different levels of government.

>

December 27/2000/World Bank's environmental compliance consultation

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

To: "P.V.Kasyanov" <

Subject: My best wishes for these holidays

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:33:07 -0800

Dear Mr. Kashyanov, thank you for your message. Please, receive my warm

greetings. Happiness and success in the new year are my wishes for you.

Sincerely;

Lucio

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