Dear Friends, I have not yet read this report of the IUCN. However,

based on this posting it appears that again there seems not to be much

interest in dealing with the state of existing deforested areas: there is

not a formal policy and there seems not to be a formal target for the

time being. It appears that environmental policies could have a higher,

and short term positive externalities on poverty conditions if based on

deforested areas than if they are based on remaining forested

areas, but a low positive impact on biodiversity levels. Hence, focusing

forest policies on forested areas alone should be expected to

yield higher positive impacts on biodiversity goals than positive

impacts on poverty levels. If this were true, then there is a

contradiction in the world bank policy when having the erradication of

poverty as priority No. 1. since biodiversity goals appear to be

more important than poverty goals the way things right now are. Formal

deforested area targets would increase both positive poverty and

biodiversity impacts, why to continue waiting for more desasters

to make up our minds?. I will read the full report with a lot of

interest as the implications of "paper parks" matter to existing

deforested areas.

Warm greetings;

Lucio

On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Francisco wrote:

…..> NEW RESEARCH REVEALS MAGNITUDE OF THREAT> TO WORLD'S FOREST

> PROTECTED AREAS> > WASHINGTON, December 2, 1999-New findings released

> today by the World Bank/WWF Alliance reveal that less than one quarter

> of declared national parks, wildlife refuges, and other protected areas

> in 10 key forested countries were well managed, and many had no management

> at all. What this means is that only one percent of these areas are secure

> from serious threats such as human settlement, agriculture, logging,

> hunting, mining, pollution, war, and tourism, among other pressures.

> In response to these findings from a study conducted by IUCN - The

> World Conservation Union, for the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest

> Conservation and Sustainable Use, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn

> and WWF-US President Kathryn S. Fuller today adopted a new target for

> converting these so called "paper parks" into effectively managed areas.

> The target calls for 50 million hectares [125 million acres] of

> existing but highly threatened forest protected area to be secured under

> effective management by the year 2005. To achieve this goal, the Alliance

> will continue to work with governments, conservation organizations,

> indigenous people and other stakeholders to identify the world's most

> threatened parks and to develop a system for implementation, improving and

Estimado JC, me podrias por favor explicar cual es la differencia

Entre medio cultural y ambiente cultural o entre medio familiar y

ambiente familiar o entre medio academico y ambiente academico o entre

medio social y ambiente social?. Crees que es correcto decer medio

ambiente cultural o medio ambiente familiar or medio ambiente academico

o medio ambiente social para expresar el entorno general de cada uno de

ellos?.

La verdad es que hay por un lado una necesidad de usar una

terminologia de aceptacion comun para que el proceso de producion de

nuevos conocimientos cresca libremente y por el otro lado hay una

necesidad de mantener terminologias oscuras para evadir potenciales

preciones formales para tomar responsibilidad y accion. Por ejemplo,

desarrollo sostenido y sostenibilidad no significan lo mismo y el primer

termino es usualmente preferido ya que amalgama los derechos y

responsabilidades de todos los sectores conflictivos en tal forma

que se puede ya sea acortar los derechos de otros o evadir

responsibilidades propias y ambas. En esta epoca de grandes avances

technologicos, una terminologia comum parece cada ves menos bien venida

por razones politicas no academicas.

Mis mas sinceros saludes;

Lucio

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, SSI wrote:

> Medio ambiente se refiere especificamente al entorno en general.

> Se ha debido especificarlo de esta manera ya que se puede hablar

> del medio cultural, medio familiar, medio academico, medios sociales,

> etc. por tanto esta aparente "redundancia" es necesaria.

> Saludos,

Estimado Carlos, cual es su posicion practica o academica alrespecto

en este momento? despues que algunos companeros respondieron asus

inquitudes?

Saludos;

Lucio

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, carlos wrote:

> Ave Elaner's:

> Sinceramente, hace mas de 20 anios que trabajo en ecologia y nunca

> nadie me logro explicar convincentemente la razon de este debate tan

> apasionado. Creo que lo importante es aquello a lo que nos referimos y la

> forma que adoptemos para referir una idea puede no ser tan

> importante. Desde luego puede ser que la forma gramatical elegida tenga en

> realidad un trasfondo del cual no estamos enterados. Pero nadie hasta

> ahora me ha podido explicar el porque de esta discusion que para algunos

> es tan seria. Usualmente, la "explicacion" que recibo es simplemente la

> afirmacion categorica de que una de las dos es la correcta y la otra es

> una barbaridad propia de ignorantes.

I agree with Jon's comments. There is a need to attempt to

forsee potential problems arising either with or parallel to the

action, not just positive ones. All regions were at one point or another

considered "Abandoned landscapes", with no economic value, even thought

they had social and environmental values. It is true that when land title

is clearly given, the farmers may have access to credit, but also land

title push them into the LAND MARKET.

Poor farmers may be more at risk with credit and land markets when

There is clear title than without it. For example, if land title is given

And credit is not enough or remains non existent or it has high transaction

costs or it turns out to be not as profitable as expected, land market

forces will take over. Land market forces(of today) follow the

"efficiency criterium", not social morals. Hence, there is a lot at

stake here should something gone wrong. A more proactive plan to

support this policy of "Helping Abandoned Lands" should be invisioned

to minimize future policy readjustment costs. BUT ANOTHER RELATED AND

MISSING LINK IS "WHAT ABOUT THE LANDLESS CASH CROPPERS?", how do they

fit into this policy?.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Jon wrote:

While this interesting article is crafted in socially and

environmentally Friendly terminology, I couldn't help my blood pressure

from going up just a little. While granted one Reuters article is not a

lot to go on, I instantaneously fear big bank mega-projects. History

shows in glorious detail that large insertions of money usually drown

local systems rather than strengthen them, especially when road building

is involved. The idea of settling land title issues once and for all sounds

very nice, but it presupposes honest claims and an effective judiciary

system.

...

...

> My point is to balance the flowery optimism of the article, at the same

>time

> hoping it is well deserved!

Dear friends, Freedom implies that goods, services, and imputs and

factors of production(specially the non-fixed ones) can move at zero or

almost zero energy/dollar/development costs from ecosystems

(countrier/regions/communities) to ecosystems(countries/regions/communities).

It implies no exceptions in terms of free movility. Hence,as long as

there are exceptions, we should expect an "illegal activity" related to it

to thrive. In other words, as long as there are exceptions, there

will always be illegal activities, and also as long as there are

exceptions there will be developing countries. The theory suggest

that only under true sustainability, there may not be room for

illegalities and developing' nicknames.

Greetings;

Lucio

.........

On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, SSI wrote:

> Dear All:

>

> I commend John Newcomb for his words and strongly support them,

>particularly these:

>

> "We should demand the free movement of people and goods all across

> the Americas - no barriers, no restrictions, and no borders. Erase

> the idea that "contrabandistas" are enemies of the people - they are

> really heroes in the fight against local economic despots, and they

> only survive because people want to buy what they sell.

> Resist, yes - resist the vision of those who see their future as leaders

> of some cozy little collectives."