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

To: "Ronald

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

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

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

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

The other thing is that if you assert that these scholarships are a

farse, why did not you say so when you made the posting of this article to ELAN?. I gave me the impression that you read it and agree with it and now you said it is a farse? Can you explaing?

Greetings;

Lucio

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

---- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Nigh <danamex@mail.internet.com.mx>

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

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

Subject: Scholarships are a farse

> > > Cristovam Buarque, the former governor of the Brazilian capital,

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

> > > Buarque said.

>

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

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

>

> Ronald

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

To: "Jim

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

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

economic theories which I argue in another article that no longer hold.

Once you include biodiversity values, by reason or default, you are leaving the traditional economic model and you are moving to what I call the ECO-ECONOMIC MARKET, and this is a totally new world. I have the feeling that your views are within the eco-economic development model, but your arguments are being sopported on the old theories, and this may be a weakness. If the world bank moderator do not post my reply to your long posting, I will send it to you directly as I think that you better know my view on the same issues so that you can calibrate/reasses your views. It is too bad that, as you may know, not everything is accepted for different reasons, even when it is obvious that honest interaction is taking place.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Jim

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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

Subject: More than one value

> Lucio - thank you for your reply. I agree that there are many types of values for differenet parts of the world around us. My point in this discussion has been to get people thinking about the fact that

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

> James

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

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

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

> To: Jim Shields

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

>

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

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

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

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

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

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

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

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

>

>

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

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

> > Greetings;

> > Lucio Munoz

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

> >

> >

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

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

> > To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

> > <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

> > Subject: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

> >

> >

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

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

> > >

> > > The key concepts here are:

> > >

> > > 1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity

> > >

> > > and

> > >

> > > 2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development

> > >

> > >

> > > James

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

To: "Robert "

<elan@csf.colorado.edu>,

"Ronald "

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

specially when you are dealing with dominant component induced system

failures. Under dominant component induced system failures, accountability enforcement is avoided because protecting the reputation/aims of the failing system is deemed as more important than restoring the sustainability of the system as a whole. As I indicated in my e-mail, the solution to this type of system failure must come from inside out to be able to restore accountability from inside out too. However, to ease the working of such a solution, enabling resourcesd(money/pressure) must come from outside in for at least two reasons: changes can take place without making feel dominant components that they will bear the full cost and making them undertand that there can be a free rider opportunity in spill over benefits; and it can be

seen internally as a fair way to deal with the problem in a systematic and inclusive manner and with clear accountability threats. Of course,

independence and single focus are the key for a global program to work

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

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

Thank you for your comment;

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

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

From: Robert

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

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

Subject: Re: World Bank, IMF Blamed for Poverty

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

>

> Robert >

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

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "eyup yuksel"

Dear Friends, under conjuctural conditions, different factors working

together can lead to the same outcome as well as different approaches

working together can lead to the same result. However, when working and planning based on additive thinking, things may be different. For example, if we difine poverty as being influenced by "n" factors, we can have the following:

P = X1 + X2 + .... + Xn, where X1,X2...,Xn are factors associated with

poverty

Xi = foctor "i" is present

xi = factor "i" is absent

The above formula simply says that there is poverty when factor X1 is

present or when factor X2 is present or where factor Xn is present or when any combination of them is present.

Then we can have the following scenarios:

a) Poverty is the worse when all factors are present at the same time, which can be expressed as follows:

P = X1.X2....Xn

b) there is no poverty when all factors are absent at the same time, which can be expressed as follows:

P = x1.x2.....xn

c) we can have different levels of poverty depending on how many factors are present/absent in different locations or through time.

Hence, if conjuctural situations are our focus then conjuctural solutions or approaches need to be divised and implemented.

We can not used non-conjuctural tools and approaches to solve conjunctural problems; otherwise we would be violated the fundamental rule of theory-practice consistency. I wrote a paper where I focused my sustainability theory on a similar situation to support my view that

sustainability problems require sustainability tools and sustainable

development problems required sustainable development tools. Since

sustainability is not sustainable development, the tools needed to address them are different.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: eyup yuksel

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

Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 11:10 AM

Subject: [cdf] Re: Question Two Summary

> As the ongoing Dialogue suggested, primary school enrollment and child mortality are viewed as indicators that can be easily measured as symptoms of poverty. Although, they are symptoms of poverty, cure of these two symptoms will normally alleviate poverty, so makes contribution to PRSPs determined as country-driven in the framework of CDF principles. So, if I were not confused during the second week's discussion, which fortunately includes some eminent experts and thinkers of the field, focusing, for me, unnecessarily too much on the artificially made "dilemma" implying the question whether these two terms are results or causes, probably will not make any sense, since in practice, as these CDF principles are implemented, we are fully aware of the principles.

>

> Interestingly, the two entities look like the common metabolic precursor which is bifunctional and therefore can intersecting the two opposing pathways of the gluocenogenesis cycle in biochemistry.

>

> Briefly speaking, two different approaches can be valid together at the same time, at the same place without distorting facts. So let us the developers of the CDF principles be free to observing implementation of their time-situation-place and conflict dependent plan. Thank you for your patience for listening my prolonged views and the analogy forming an unexpected coda.

>

> My best regards

>

> Eyüp Yüksel

Jim reponse to my e-mails

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

From: Jim

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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

Subject: RE: More than one value

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

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

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

Cheers, Jim

James

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

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

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

To: Jim

Subject: Re: More than one value

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

Sustainability interesting, in a couple of them I point out/use the argument that under the traditional economic development model, whole ecosystems simplified by forested areas had negative value because they were perceived as barriers to economic development, which obviously this includes biodiversity values. As you know the hart of the traditional economic model was the conversion of forested areas to deforested areas assuming social and environmental externalities either zero or minimal. However, I found some of your views still based on the traditional economic theories which I argue in another article that no longer hold.

Once you include biodiversity values, by reason or default, you are

Leaving the traditional economic model and you are moving to what I call the ECO-ECONOMIC MARKET, and this is a totally new world. I have the feeling that your views are within the eco-economic development model, but your arguments are being sopported on the old theories, and this may be a weakness. If the world bank moderator do not post my reply to your long posting, I will send it to you directly as I think that you better know my view on the same issues so that you can calibrate/reasses your views. It is too bad that, as you may know, not everything is accepted for different reasons, even when it is obvious that honest interaction is taking place.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Jim

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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

Subject: More than one value

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

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

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

> James

>

>

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

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

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

> To: Jim

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

>

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

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

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

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

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

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

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

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

>

>

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

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

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

> > Greetings;

> > Lucio Munoz

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

> >

> >

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

> > From: Jim

> > To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

> > <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

> > Subject: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

> >

> >

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

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

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

> > >

> > > The key concepts here are:

> > >

> > > 1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity

> > >

> > > and

> > >

> > > 2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development

> > >

> > >

> > > James

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

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Georges Drouet

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

I see a world based on specialized external and internal institutional

fragmentation. External fragmentation refers to the high number development organizations usually totally unconnected and outside of third party monitoring forces. For example, the FAO goal is to ensure agriculture and food sustainablity by supporting specially the supply side(local production) of development while the world bank goal is to ensure income stablitiy by supporting specially the demand side(poverty reduction), yet their policies are not or appear not connected even though they are more or less influencing the opposite side of the same market. Internal framentation refers to institutions having several objectives at the same time also usually totally unconnected and outside third party monitoring forces. For example, the world bank has to achieve the goal of poverty reduction and of economic efficiency at the same time, which many could argue are two goals that put or may put in conflict the priorities of the Bank.

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

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

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

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

in poverty reduction terms and less criticism.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

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

From: Georges Drouet

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

Cc: <kqelahi@albedo.net>; <info@simpol.org>

Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 12:27 AM

Subject: [cdf] Re: CDF: Strengthening Partnership

> My name is Georges Drouet, I'm the president of Prospective

Internationale, a Belgium based non-profit organisation which aim is to spread the use of Prospective Science in the research of sustainability. Politics, economy, social affairs, cultural matters, are our working fields. We work closely with ISPO, the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation based in London to promote a new world framework exempt of competitive concepts.

> http://www.simpol.org

>

> Following Dr. Khandakar Qudrat-I Elahi post, my comments are:

>

• The question is to define which of the four key groups of the CDF is going to take the helm in the use of WB funds

> - governments and other governmental bodies which are looking after the benefits of their own ruling class, sometimes of their middle class and, eventually, if there is some funds still, the poors

> - multilateral and bilateral agencies also in charge of implementing the wills of not only one country ruling class but the ones of two or more ruling class...

>

> - private sector which survival depends on its year benefits to keep

> share-holders happy, be they national or international, looks to social welfare as a business cost to be reduced as soon as possible and is interested in seting the most skilled environment for its own growth

> - foreign NGOs and national NGOs, the former being obliged to be

> politically correct if they want to keep their financial ressources, the later with little to say because of their weak logistic capacities and political representativity

>

> If I wanted to built a house, I would look after a loan in a bank and ask an architect to design the house. Why should the bank had to be involved in the design of the project it's financing? Does the bank have studied architecture or is it a financial professional?

>

> During 50 years, after the Second World War, the international bodies

> issued from the Bretton Wood conferences, WB, UN, IMF, in one hand and the European Commission in the other hand have being forcing Third World (TW) countries to accept their ideas, some will say diktats... From an historical point of view, the action of these international bodies arrives in the post-colonialism era. In that time, the transnational companies couldn't stand the idea of loosing ground in the so beneficial business of importing commodities at the best price, i.e. the lowest one. This dilemna was resolved thanks to the control of development strategies issued by First World (FW) governments. The corporate control of political power drove development strategies to build power plants, harbours, highways, in a global concept yet designed to maintain an international stream of commodities from TW to FW countries. This is the clasical concept of core and periphery. The impact of these strategies in the NGO sector was the implementation of politically correct rules to be followed by the working agencies if they wished still receiving public or private funds: they were obliged to work on building the same corporate development concept. In one hand the developement bill gave respectability and good conscience to the donors country's political class when, in fact, in the other hand, a high percentage of developement funds, ranging from 50 to 85 per cent, returned to the hands of FW people, be they consultants, field engineers, raw material providers, administrative staff and other related areas, working in the developing country or in the FW base of the NGO...

>

> Around ten years ago, two important things occured.

>

> The first one was the prominence of the WTO (and its previous form, the GATT) in the world system. The astonishing power of this economical

> policies making body, almost politically independant, and totally out of control of any democratic representation, have produced an imbalance

> between the usual entities used by the corporate power to reinforce their invisible hand in TW countries and its own new worldwide national

> authority, the later one making the former ones almost obsoletes. I mean the relevance of WB, IMF, UN and EC in designing development policies have loosed ground because the real economical power is now on the WTO hands, thus the corporate system doesn't need the Bretton Woods hidden support to impose rules to international labour distribution. Development strategies have been substituted by economical laws.

>

> The second important matter is that the governmental development agencies started to heard independant NGO voices worrying about the development programmes' ineptitude: too expensive, no results. Some of the most relevant international bodies, particularly ECHO, the European Commission Humanitarian Organisation, decided to test a new concept of development strategy. Ema Bonino, the EC commissioner, decided to open an administrative path to the TW local NGO in a way to hear the field.

Despite the good intention of this will, the weight and the complexity of the EC administration drove the project to a situation in which the lobbying agencies are the main managers of the decision flow.

>

> Is the WB going to follow this historical process or is it able to avoid another twenty years of development fund misuse?

>

> Is M. James Wolfensohn enough decided to pursue his strategy reform to implement a really new and original development policy?

>

> I'm affraid he's pretty hand-tied for it the Bretton Woods bodies control by the US political class which in turn is totally controlled by the transnational companies' power due to the corporate funding interference in the US political life. The Pledge of Allegiance of the US political power is on the hands of the world CEOs and they are not decided to leave the system to be changed, for it the last resignations of some key people in the WB, IMF, UN and the full independance of the WTO ruling and disciplinary sections.

>

> More than ever, the world bodies, which yet own a really weak, but still being, democratic representation, are the servants of the economical powerfuls. Is the time of Breton Woods' Directors rebellion arrived?

>

> I'm affraid not !

>

> Thank you for your reading.

> Georges Drouet

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

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: <Profitinafrica

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

The gaps I see you identify are: value adding/lossing gaps; theory/practice gaps; local/non-local need gaps; responsibility/accountability gaps; local

/non-local resource efficiency gaps; local/non-local priority gaps; and

market/non-market issue gaps. Under conjuctural thinking, these gaps should disappear, hence leading to a situation similar or parallet to the one you envision.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <Profitinafrica

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

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

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

> My name is Peter Burgess. I am a late comer to the CDF dialog ..... though I have had a long time interest in the importance of a comprehensive development framework in order to achieve success and progress in socio-economic development .... and by extension ..... success in reducing poverty and success in improving the quality of life for more than just an elite few.

>

> My background is Cambridge engineering and economics, UK Chartered

> Accountancy, US corporate management including Chief Financial Officer of an international company and more than 20 years development and management consultancy experience. I am now engaged in the management of the AfriFund Initiative for investment in the private entrepreneurial sector in Africa.

>

> I would like to raise six issues having an impact on development success in Africa

>

> One ..........

>

> There must be a clear understanding of the difference between economic value adding and economic value destruction. The Poverty Reduction Process must be built on a foundation that allows for sustainabity ......economic value adding. The CDF Principles are not enough to ENSURE sustainability largely because these principles are themselves only a subset of all the principles that need to be applied to achieve development success.

>

> There are management techniques that can help in determining whether or not available resources will result in sustainable development and sustained improvement in socio-economic standards ....... one such technique is Value Management which applied in the development context will clearly differentiate between economic value adding situations and value losing situations.

>

> In my work in the corporate world, almost all investment has produced

rapid economic value adding results .... the reward from good investment decisions is substantial, and there is never any question of sustainability.

>

> Similar work within the ODA development environment, using Value

Management methodology shows massive economic value losing performance

>

> ...... and then we wonder why development investment has not worked.

>

> Two .................

>

> The issue of management and the analytical framework. The analytical

> framework used for project evaluation by almost all development financial institutions and donors remains a THEORETICAL framework ...... with hardly any hard cost and performance information from actual operations. The management accounting dimension of development and government / public sector operations is lacking .... and sadly, hardly recognized as lacking by the leadership of the ODA community. The feedback process so essential for good management is missing. It is no wonder that development aid is likened to a "black hole" ..... where resources go in and nothing comes out. The CDF will not change much unless the management dimension and feedback and accounting

> and accountability are part of the framework.

>

> Three........

>

> I our view, the concept of a comprehensive development framework seems to be at odds with the project form of organization .... a form of organization popularized by the World Bank when large capital projects dominated the loan porfolio. I would observe that a lot of the rules and regulations that have been incorporated into the negotiation and implementation of a project are very disrespectful of the concept of sovereignty and the financial rules and regulations that are important in keeping control of government and public sector resources. The organizational arrangements for development implementation should make use of institutional capacity that is intended to be in place for the long haul ...... not just temporary elite project implementing units and organizations ..... just the basic organizations

and institutions of government ...... and the national private entrepreneurial business sector and the national professional sector.

>

> Four ........

>

> >From our perspective, the ODA community has done little to support and strengthen the mechanisms of government and public sector accounting...... it has made accountability and transparency an issue in government, while at the same time moving its own project organizations outside the government structure and its financial (and other) control mechanisms. It may be true that government rules and regulations do not make program implementation easy ....... but it has been an abdication of responsibility on the part of ODA leadership to avoid the problem of improving these rules and regulations by simply moving away and setting up in a favored environment outside the government framework of rules and regulations.

>

> Five .........

>

> Another issue relates to making best use of available resources .....

human, natural, material and financial. In our view (the AfriFund view), the human resources available in abundance in Africa have been under-valued, while products of the NORTH which are in short supply in Africa have been the central to development investment. ODA has funded machinery and equipment, and technical assistance from the NORTH while doing very little to pay decent remuneration to local staff. There is little focus on building local supply capacity, local contracting capacity and building demand pull development. The WFP model where poor Africans do development work in exchange for food is typical of this thinking ...... nothing wrong with people working .....but people should be paid for the work they do so they can pay for other

things that they need.

>

> Five .........

>

> Another issue is the difference between what is being funded by the ODA community with what is identified as priority by the African community..... both at the government level and in small communities. Though everyone in the ODA world will say that donor priorities are driven by national priorities ....... there are few people in the African communities that I have visited that believe that this is the case. Most community leaders I have listened to over the past several years have asked that funds are deployed to do things that are useful in their communities and not just what the urban elite, NORTH and SOUTH wants to do.

>

> Six .........

>

> There needs to be a clear understanding of how the market economy works... both in theory and on the ground ........ a lot of the depressed prices of export crops is a result of massive global production capacity increase funded by government and the ODA community using World Bank projections that were based on pre-capacity increase projections. These decisions were not made last year ..... but twenty and thirty years ago ..... with very long term consequences. There needs to be an understanding of the different behavior of markets in a shortage economy and in a surplus economy ....... African labor is part of a surplus economy ..... but African goods are in a shortage economy. There needs to be an understanding of how non-monetary transactions work ...... and how the banking and finance sector / public debt

> / exchange rates etc. impact the non-monetary sector. Distortion in the shortage economy of Africa has resulted in fortunes for those with control over the (reasonably) free flow of goods. Meanwhile, the market mechanism to solve shortages has been corrupted almost absolutely.

>

> Sorry ..... Enough ...... This posting is already too long. I hope these issues are as relevant to you as they seem to be to me.

>

> Thank you

>

> Peter Burgess

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

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Richard Blake"

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Richard Blake

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

Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:16 AM

Subject: [cdf] Re: Week 4 Question

> My name is Richard Cameron Blake. I am a lawyer with

> some experience in the developing world. I have very

> much appreciated hearing everyone's views over the

> last three weeks and look forward to more

> conversation, and action, in the future.

>

> I recently wrote an article analyzing the CDF for the

> Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal,

> available at

> <http://diana.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/index_enhanced.htm>

> (click on "Current Issue" -- my article is number 5).

> The article's conclusion -- applicable to this week's

> question about the most important thing that must

> occur to implement the CDF over the next 6 to 12

> months -- is that the CDF will never be fully

> effective unless the citizens of the CDF countries are

> more fully involved with its implementation.

>

> Numerous participants in this discussion have

> commented on the importance of listening to the people

> in the developing world. I fear that the CDF will

> join numerous other "paradigms" and programs unless

> the citizens of the CDF pilot countries, and other

> countries that later use the CDF, are fully on board.

> And they must be on board not only with planning but

> with implementation of the goals formulated in CDF

> planning.

>

> The CDF literature emphasizes full participation by

> all sectors involved with development -- government,

> international organizations, civil society, the

> private sector. If a country uses the CDF only to

> strengthen ties with some of those sectors, the goal

> of poverty alleviation will not be accomplished.

>

> In my article, I suggest that the World Bank take

> stronger steps to urge full scale participation with

> all development sectors, including civil society. I

> also suggest that CDF countries take more time to

> involve civil society in CDF planning. Specifically,

> I recommend civic participation on the scale that

> occurred during the drafting of South Africa's most

> recent constitution. While described more fully in

> the article, the Constitutional Assembly, which

> drafted the constitution, established a web page,

> e-mail addresses, and phone lines for people to use to

> comment; it held meetings in outlying areas where the

> above technologies were not available seeking imput of

> the people; it published newsletters where

> developments were enumerated. In short -- the

> Constitutional Assembly did all in its power to make

> the constitution a product of the people of South

> Africa -- the people it affected. Of course, not

> everyone agreed with all aspects of the constitution,

> but the result was much more participatory than if the

> constitution had been drafted by the government alone.

> If CDF countries implemented wide scale participation

> such as occurred in South Africa, the result would be

> the better for it.

>

> I look forward to your comments. And I look forward

> to greater successes in poverty reduction.

>

> Richard Blake

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

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

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

The framework has the following steps:

a) data production stage:

we have to organized research initiatives so that we can produced

consistently both traditional knowledge and scientific knoledge at the same time.

b) data dissemination stage:

we have to organized data disemination initiatives so that we can

consistently spread traditional and scientific knowledge through normal

education and extension channels at the same time.

c) replication stage:

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

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

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

promoted as the production of scientific knowledge; the disemination of

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 4:48 AM

Subject: Additional Questions - Week 4

> Dear E-Colleagues,

>

> Thank you sincerely for your responses to the earlier set of questions. As promised, we are sending out a second, smaller set of questions for Week 4 in continuation of our phase on "Constraints, Opportunities and Lessons Learned" related to integrating sustainable food security. Below please find three questions related to information, education, extension, and communication.

> In addition to this topic, please feel free to raise alternative issues.

> As with the earlier Questions (15-18), we ask that your responses specify:

> a) the associated constraints;

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

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

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

>

> Prioritising Research Efforts - Continued

> D. Information, Education, Extension, Communication - Participants

pointed to three domains:

> 1) the importance of greater awareness, education, and communication on the longer term environmental, nutritional, health, ethical, spiritual and holistic dimensions of agriculture and food security;

> 2) the need for effective partnerships between research and extension to translate scientific knowledge into practical, adapted outputs that

> incorporate indigenous knowledge and resources; and

> 3) the usefulness of information exchange in order to scale up lessons learned to apply in other areas (whether communities, regions or countries)

>

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

>

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

>

> QUESTION 22. How can communication, information and education be used effectively for scaling up of research results and lessons learned?

>

> E. For other issues or topics on which you may wish to express yourselves,

> please remember to include:

> a) the associated constraints; b) concrete mechanisms (either existing or suggested) for overcoming the constraints (including institutional, financial and political, whether internal or external to NARS); c) the nature of partnerships and players to move toward solutions; and d) illustration of your points with actual examples of success stories or lessons learned. We look forward to your responses and insights during the coming days.

>

> With best wishes,

>

> The E-Team

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

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

An extreme reply to an extreme view like this is "eliminate poverty now, and let's organize a discussion tomorrow in a world free of poverty. We should then be ready to recieved billions of messages reading - we do not need your help now, thank you-". However, we should start somewhere, and through open-mindiness move more and more down the participation line closer and closer to the masses. Let's not forget that the inclusion of social participation has been the dividing block among non-environmental paradigms of development before and it is now the dividing block between eco-economic development paradigms. Hence incorporating social concerns will take a little more time than perhaps desired, but just the fact that we are freely talking about it is to me a huge improvement. Let's keep our minds open to at least reduce the number of people that still needs convincing that sustainability can not take place without effectively incorporating social concerns.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <DonPhelps

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

Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 6:54 PM

Subject: [cdf] Re: Week 4 Question

> I find it ironic that this entire discussion is being held between >the highest educated people in the world on how to help the >economically disadvantaged. Where is the contribution from the >masses? They do not need education to be of the highest intelligence >but they do need to have time free of making a living in order to >participate. Perhaps we should all be sitting in the slums and >barrios of the world holding this discussion while trying to live on a >dollar a day.

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

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

Cc: "Odo >

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

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

A sustainability vision has the following characteristics:

a) it is proactive;

b) it is holistic

c) it is inclusive;

d) it is optimal;

e) it is flexible

g) it is conjunctural

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

agricultural sustainability in isolation as changes in agricultural

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

The actual institutional setting dealing with food security/agriculture

production is FAO, CGIAR, GFAR, and other development organizations (WB,IMF,...), which mostly reflect the economic concerns of

food security/agricultural production. There seems to be a need to

incoporage social concerns and environmental concerns formally by including social consulting groups(SCG) and environmental consulting groups(ECG) to induce a little more optimal outcomes. It has been said in the conference that we need to incorporate social and environmental concerns to ensure the sustainability of the supply side, but this requires Institutional consistency in my view.

The six characteristics mentioned above are relevant when dealing with

components such as production/consumption; supply/demand;

farmers/researchers/intermediaries/consumers;data

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

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

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 9:37 AM

Subject: Questions - Week 6

> Dear E-Colleagues,

>

> We have arrived at the sixth and final week of our

> E-Conference. In honour of our last week together, we will celebrate

with six (6) questions. The first four questions have to do with

'Prerequisites for Making It All Happen' and the last two questions have to do with 'What Happens Next? or the Way Forward'.

>

> I. Prerequisites for Making It All Happen. During the

> discussions of guiding principles for incorporating sustainable food

> security into the research process in Week 5, reference was made to the fact that there are prerequisite actions which must be taken to allow the process to happen. With this in mind:

>

> QUESTION 34. How can the NARS (and their partners) better

> orient their programmes and retool their professional staff in addressing the sustainable food security dimensions?

>

> QUESTION 35. What policy options and incentives can be

> described and provided for NARS to ensure support for the full integration of food security dimensions in their agenda?

>

> QUESTION 36. What incentives could be provided for the NARS

> and their partners to establish linkages to ensure the integration of food security dimensions into the research agenda?

>

> QUESTION 37. How can farmers (particularly women and

> resource poor farmers) be empowered to take an active part in every stage of the research process to ensure appropriateness and relevance of the research to their socio-economic and environmental conditions?

>

> II. The Way Forward - What Happens Next? You have done a

> lot of work toward the preparation of the guidelines on this topic. Once we have the forthcoming guidelines in a published format there will need to be steps taken to ensure that they do not just sit on the shelf. We look to you to assist us in proposing a plan of action (how and by whom?) for putting the guidelines to use.

>

> QUESTION 38. What should be the follow-up roles of FAO,

> the Global Forum for Agriculture Research (GFAR), the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), Development Agencies, and Donors in using the guidelines for:

>

> a) Raising awareness of sustainable food security issues?

>

> b) Facilitating the redirection of the research agenda?

>

> c) Promoting a change in the research approach?

>

> d) Supporting the engagement of all stakeholders (including

> national and international cooperation)?

>

> QUESTION 39: What tools, mechanisms and activities should be

> proposed to ensure that the guidelines are interpreted into action

programs at the national and regional levels?

>

> With best wishes,

>

> The E-team

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

To: <sustainrwf@esva.net>

Dear Warren, I found some aspects in this issue very interesting and I would like to make some comments.

With respect to the article "Building Livable Communities":

I found it very interesting that now it is being recognized as "smart

growth" development based on local aspirations and participation as local people know better and suported by the central goverment. However, this model is the one local communities in particular and developing countries in general have been calling for in past, yet they were usually not supported.

If local is better is "smart growth" now, what type of growth was the one based on outside views and participation as non-local knew/know less?. How can we have been promoting non-smart growth for so long?. Can this new policy be used to recognize those communities who resisted control from outsiders?. While moving toward this type of "smart growth" is a step in the right direction, for this model to be sustainable we have to focus it on "optimization", not maximization. The consequences of maximization can be similar whether the process is control by one company or by many many members. Hence, the challenge for this task force is to find ways to implement optimal smart growth in these communities.

With respect to the article, Are We Beyond Darwin?:

I found it very interesting and I would like to make the following comments:

a) if I am not mistaken, Darwin's theories are based on a natural order, a place where there is not MARKETING.

b) marketing could make the weakest bit the fittest in our increasingly

non-natural world since it has the potential to affect

rationality/irrationality;

c) for example, under the rational man assumption(there is no addiction) we can choose between less and more, but the marketing world is fixed into "more is better", which insert in us a feeling of wellness, (arrogant) pride, and dominance;

d) under the addiction assumption, still our choice for more is heavely tied to marketing and our choice of less is bound by the feeling of failure, loss of selfsteem, and the process of dynial;

e) in conclusion, while looking at the consequences of Darwin's theories from the point of view of addition is interesting, we have to keep in mind that Darwin's theories apply to a world free of MARKETING.

With respect to the US/UN Commission on Global Economy:

While I agree that to face globalization from a more sustainable angle we have to redisign the international institutional structure, there is no need for another Global Investment Fund specially in developing countries, poverty is a worse problem than investment, what it is needed is the creation of the WORLD POVERTY FUND to face poverty head on by openly declare it a world wide problem that needs to be immediately addressed to set up the building blocks for better future for humanity.

What I think it is needed is the following:

a) an international tax system

b) an international swap system for debt and technology

c) the creation of the World Poverty Fund

d) limiting the activities of the world bank and the international monetary fund to only economic efficiency subject to sustainability concerns;

e) limiting the activities of the FAO to local food security priorities;

f) counteract the World Trade Organization with the World Social

Organization(WSO) and the World Environmental Organization(WEO) to set up the germinal structure toward a more sustainable world

These are my comments Warren.

My warm greetings;

Lucio

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

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, I have follow the comments posted closely. Some people have indicated that the CDF principles will be subject to constant revisions and adjustments, and this is good to know. I believe flexibility can be one way to reduced the criticism received, and hence steps should be taken to ensure that this flexibility exist when it is needed. As time passes, and technology and access to it, specially the internet, improves it will be more difficult to resist flexibility (local/international), and hence it would be better to be ready for it. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this conference, and thanks to all.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, I have read most of the ideas shared up to this moment about biodiversity and its related issues.

Still the gap biodiversity/poverty seems to be the key issue to advance this two goals together in the future. If we look closely, in my opinion, poverty and biodiversity losses have resulted as byproducts of the same wealth generating process which traditionally has assumed that social and environmental externalities were either zero or minimal. Hence, if poverty and biodivesty lost were/are the only two weal pilars sustaining these wealth generating process, making only one of them strong is not the solution in sustainability terms. We have to find ways to make them both strong at the same time, and our thoughts should go in that direction. How can we address both poverty and biodiversity conservation at the same time?. We are almost at the point of breaking the theoretical barriers, but still very far from breaking the practical barriers. This discussion to me shows interest in moving faster from the theoretical stage to the practical domain and I will be looking forward to contribute in this area if possible in the near future.

My warm greetings;

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

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

[From the Moderator: This message contains two additional messages from Scharlin and Munoz. The paper referred to in Scharlin's is being placed on the web page under Record of Contributions, under Phase III. Thank you.]

Message 1. The Way Forward - Week 6, Comment by Scharlin

From: Patricia Scharlin

To: RAFS2000

Sent: 7/17/00 4:07 PM

Subject: Re: Summary - Week 5 Responses

I have been silent through this most interesting discussion, but wish to send you the following executive summary which my organization, the

Rainforest Alliance, prepared for US AID. Some of the findings are relevant to research needs and are based on a multitude of interviews on the ground.

See attachment.

Pat Scharlin

UN Representative

Rainforest Alliance

Message 2. The Way Forward - Week 6, Comment by Munoz

From: Lucio Munoz

To: RAFS2000

Sent: 7/17/00 1:48 AM

Subject: Re: Closing comments

Dear Friends, it was a pleasure to exchange ideas and comments with you all. This forum and our free interaction is to me an indication of better relations to come within the academic community, within the users of the products of the academic community, and between them. In my opinion, we can not achieve food security unless the different parties that are responsible for delivering such an objective can work in full unison and respect for each other views and priorities. My warm greetings to all and keep the good work;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

From: E-team

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

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

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

We thank you for all of the valuable ideas and insights that were offered with such enthusiasm during the e-conference. We attempted to accomplish a great deal in a short time and your collaboration has allowed us to succeed. We also appreciate your helping us stay on track. This has been an enlightening effort and we will make every effort to ensure the guidelines reflect the many views, concerns and proposed solutions. On that note, we would like to ask if any of you wishes to volunteer to review the guidelines before they are finalised? We would hope that a few individuals representing different sectors would be willing to take a last look at them and offer comments before they go to press. The timeframe should be in late September and early October. If you are willing to join the review process, please send an email to us at RAFS2000@fao.org.

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

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

Best regards,

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

Rainer Krell from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) Fernando Chaparro and Christian Hoste from the NARS Secretariat Constance Neely, Carla Roncoli, Thomas Price, David Stewart, and Julia Earl from the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Program(SANREM), University of Georgia

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Week 6 - Summary of Responses

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

Greetings. Thank you for your contributions during Week 6. Below please find the summary of responses to Questions 34 - 39.

With best regards, The E-Team

QUESTION 34. How can the NARS (and their partners) better orient their

programs and retool their professional staff in addressing the sustainable food security dimensions?

Responses clustered around three topics: how to set research priorities, how to implement research, and how to motivate researchers to orient their efforts in the right direction.

Bunch recommends a focus on 'limiting factors' as guiding principle for

priority setting: for instance, given that irregularity or lack of rain is a major constraint in many developing countries, research should focus on micro-scale water harvesting and recycling. He also emphasized that participatory, farmer-led research and technology evaluation (especially by resource-poor farmers) is essential in orienting efforts towards solutions that will truly help farmers. Others agree, stressing the need to test technologies on farmers' fields (Aphane), farmers' involvement in all stages of the research process (Villalobos), and including food processing and post-harvest handling (Aphane). Aphane also suggests strengthening post-harvest research centers.

Russell and Aphane stress interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration, which should be the focus of in-service training and workshops (Aphane). But for cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral fertilization to be viable, more flexible institutional structures are needed (Russell and Munoz). Likewise, the time-frame of research should also move beyond conventional project cycle towards sustainable strategic interventions (Russell). Moreover, Munoz calls for integrated approach whereby agricultural sustainability and food security are considered in the context of, rather than in isolation from, all factors and forces that impacts them from inside and outside the

agricultural sector.

Barroga proposes that what is needed is "reorienting" attitudes of

scientists rather than "retooling". In particular a concern for providing the right technology to farmers should replace the emphasis on publications and peer recognition. According to Bunch, one of the greatest problems in formal research is the low level of motivation to truly benefit farmers. He suggests that 'farmer adoption' be considered the main criterion for success in research, and proposes the (admittedly difficult to implement) idea of giving bonuses to researchers based on users' adoption.

More broadly, Munoz calls for a 'sustainability vision' characterized by six essential attributes: a) proactive, b) holistic, c) inclusive, d)optimizing, e) flexible, f) conjunctural. These should be the guiding

principles directing decisions in all aspects of research, including issues of production and consumption, supply and demand, local and scientific knowledge, local and non local technologies, formal education and agricultural extension, data collection and results dissemination, relationships between farmers, consumers, researchers and intermediaries.

QUESTION 35. What policy options and incentives can be described and

provided for NARS to ensure support for the full integration of food

security dimensions in their agenda?

Aphane points out that policies need to aim at:

i) enhancing productivity through cost-effective, environment friendly poverty reduction programs

ii) ensuring household food security, food safety and optimum

nutritional status; improving access to key resources needed to produce and process food (e.g. land, credit, equipment, skills, etc.);

iii) support food-crop diversification to promote equitable

intra-household food distribution, with particular attention to gender;

iv) fostering the development of more equitable food distribution

systems;

v) involving all stakeholders in project design, implementation and

evaluation;

vi) building institutional capacity of beneficiaries and service

providers.

vii) establishing cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral collaborative

linkages and information exchange;

Villalobos also stresses access to a good communication system and clear definition of research priorities.

QUESTION 36. What incentives could be provided for the NARS and their

partners to establish linkages to ensure the integration of food security dimensions into the research agenda?

Some participants are puzzled by the question, arguing that being part of a process that effectively deals with food insecurity and enabling the poor to participate in the development process should be incentive enough(Villalobos and Aphane).

Responses to Question 34 (about motivating scientists) also address this question.

QUESTION 37. How can farmers (particularly women and resource poor farmers) be empowered to take an active part in every stage of the research process to ensure appropriateness and relevance of the research to their socio-economic and environmental conditions?

Participants advocate using participatory research, involving farmers in all steps of research, not only as data sources but also as technology users: problem identification, priority setting, data collection, data analysis, extension of results (Villalobos and Aphane).

Aphane also advocates paying attention to meeting nutritional needs of

vulnerable groups and involving women, especially in the design and

implementation of experiments on food processing and post-harvest

technology. In particular, she emphasize the need to evaluate impact of

technologies on women and to direct efforts to reduce their work burden so that they can devote more time to their family responsibilities.

She recommends:

i) to aim research efforts to better understanding intra-household

dynamics and division of labor in order to ensure relevant targeting of

technologies;

ii) to include women extension officers in advisory teams, especially

where women play a role in crop production and income earning for their

households.

iii) to design extension services to specifically address women's food

crops and production activities;

iv) to formulate deliberate policies targeting women farmers;

v) to develop time and energy saving technologies, especially for food production and processing activities;

vi) to provide credit to improve adoption rates of such technologies;

vii) to target youths with education programs that seek redress

stereotypical gender roles.

QUESTION 38. What should be the follow-up roles of FAO, the Global Forum for Agriculture Research (GFAR), the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), Development Agencies, and Donors in using the guidelines for:

a) Raising awareness of sustainable food security issues?

They should publicize examples of the current situation, as well as lessons learned to guide action (Villalobos).

b) Facilitating the redirection of the research agenda?

They should adopt conference guidelines on priority setting, distinguishing between needs of developed and developing countries (Villalobos). See also responses to Question 34.

c) Promoting a change in the research approach?

They, including the World Bank and IMF, should incorporate social and

environmental concerns, shifting away from over-emphasis on the economic aspects of food security and agricultural production (Munoz).

d) Supporting the engagement of all stakeholders (including national and international cooperation)?

QUESTION 39. What tools, mechanisms and activities should be proposed to ensure that the guidelines are interpreted into action programs at the national and regional levels?

Villalobos calls for the establishment of an effective monitoring system of the guidelines being produced by this conference to be implemented at every level of operation, with an evaluation of results every three years.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Scharlin proposes that some of the findings, based on field interviews and synthesized in the executive summary which her organization, Rainforest Alliance, prepared for USAID are relevant to the discussion. The paper was placed on the web page under Record of Contributions (under Phase III).