July 18/2000/FAO Conference/Additional comments by Sharlin and Munoz

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:16:39 +0200

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: The Way Forward - Week 6, Additional Comments by Scharlin and Mun oz

To: "'RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org'" <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.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: 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. I will be away for three weeks in Japan

visiting my parents in law, and I will not be able to respond to the list

until after that time. My warm greetings to all and keep the good work;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:20:21 +0200From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>Subject: Concluding Remarks from the E-TeamTo: "'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

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 03:00:17 +0200From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>Subject: Week 6 - Summary of ResponsesTo: "'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).

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>Subject: Re: Closing commentsDate: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:48:14 -0700

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. I will be away for three weeks in Japan

visiting my parents inlaw, and I will not be able to respond to the list

until after that time.

My warm greetings to all and keep the good work;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>Subject: Re: Keep the doors open for improvementsDate: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:00:54 -0700

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. I will be three weeks in

Japan for a family trip and hence I will not be able to respond to your

messages until after I am back.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>Subject: RE: Biodiversity and Poverty ReductionDate: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:18:37 -0700

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.

I will be in a three week trip to Japan so I will not be able to reply to

your messages until I come back after Aug/07/00.

My warm greetings;

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

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: "Ana …" <asailari@campus.oc.es>, <governance@iista.org>Subject: Re:_Boletin_de_la_Red_PNUD/IIG BA_13?

Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 22:34:58 -0700

Estimados Amigos, lei con interes la informacion proporcionada en este

mensaje y tengo los siguientes comentarios positivos para compartir. Me fue

dificil conceptualizar la forma como el autor o autores de este documento

conectan las opportunidades y riesgos para la democratizacion y desarrollo

humano con los pilares de vulnerabilidad social, economica, y politica.

Creo que esto se debe a usar muchas estadisticas sin major cuidado a

organizacion dentro de cada pilar y entre pilares que permita ordenamiento y

agrupacion de aspectos internos y externos. Ademas note lo siguiente: a)

nada se menciona especificamente sobre la vulnerabilidad ambiental que es

tan clave para latino america ahorita en mi opinion; b) no esfuerso se mira

en conectar la vulnerabilidad social con la economica o la politica o con

ambas; c) no veo una coneccion clara entre la desigualdad y su impacto en

los niveles de vulnerabilidad social, economica, y politica; y d) no formas

de medir el grado de vulnerabilidad interna de cada pais, por pilar, y en

general, se presenta, lo cual se necesita para poder determinar

vulnerabilidad prioritarias internas y externas.

Yo he escrito un articulo que proporciona bases teoricas y un ejemplo

empirico de como aplicar teoria de sostenibilidad en la practica para poder

hacer analysis detallados de systemas y subsistemas basados en indicadores

ampliamente aceptados y organizados de tal forma que permitan comparaciones

internas y externas, individuales y de grupo. Creo que las ideas en ese

articulo se pueden aplicar a la estructura de vulnerabilidad presentada en

este documento y humildemente les indico el lugar en mi pagina personal

donde este articulo se encuentra, si tienen lugar y tiempo por favor leerlo.

El articulo se encuentra en http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/ART8 y

esperon que sea de su utilidad.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

tml

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

From: Ana ….<asantilari@cpus.uoc.es>

To: <governance@iita.org>

Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:02 AM

Subject: Boletin de la Red PNUD/IIG nº 13

(texto sin acentos)

=================================================================

B O L E T I N

ESPECIAL

RED DE GOBERNABILIDAD Y DESARROLLO INSTITUCIONAL EN AMERICA L.

PNUD-IIG

Nº 13, 20 de julio del 2000

=================================================================

***SUMARIO:***

PAGINA DE LA RED: http://www.iigov.org/pnud

OPORTUNIDADES Y RIESGOS PARA LA DEMOCRATIZACION Y EL DESARROLLO

HUMANO

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

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: = Andres…Guido…..

Subject: Re: Las dos caras de las ONGs

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:52:27 -0700

Estimados Amigos, estoy de acuerdo con el punto principal mencionado en este

articulo:

* no es sorpresa que NGOs soporten GOs con expectaciones formales o

informales de participacion directa en sus areas de interes en caso de

formar govierno, specialmente en Latino America y por lo tanto este hecho es

no anomalo;

Estoy seguro que cada uno de ustedes puede mencionar casos especificos de

esta naturaleza en cade uno de sus paises.

Pero en mi opinion, lo que el ariculo no deja claro es la naturaleza de esa

sorpresa. Hay por lo menos 3 tipos de NGOs, economicas, sociales, y

ambientales, y es de esperar que cada tipo de NGO va a sorportar directa o

indirectamente, el GO que le permita maximizar sus objetivos. Hubiera sido

bueno que el autor definiera claramente el tipo de NGOs al que se refiere,

sociales o ambientales o ambas, para reducir las posibilidades de confusion.

Lo que es sorpresa para mi es que el caso Mexicano demuestra claramente la

tendencia de NGOs latino americanas despues de la caida de el bloque

sovietico de moverse desde el punto de NGOs militantes a el punto de NGOs

cooperativas. Esto implica un movimiento desde la cultura extrema hacia la

cultura de cooperacion basado en la premisa que en estos dias parece mas

posible lograr mas estando adentro de el sistema que afuera, especialemente

que la teoria liberal aparentemente promueve "libertad" y "participacion".

La otra sorpresa parece ser que el movimiento NGO social se ha ido

aparentemente debilitando poco a poco a medida que el movimiento NGO

ambiental se ha ido consolidando. Una ves hice el comentario de que las NGO

ambientales han alcanzado mas poder y desarrollo que las NGOs sociales en

menos de 40 an~os, especialmente en latino america donde el problema social

ha sido tradicionalmente extremo, lo cual a cambiado la lista de

prioridades, desde puramente sociales, a socio-ambientales o puramente

ambientales. En mi opinion, el tener varias caras es una buena estrategia

de promocion, accion, y proteccion en manos de NGOs, cualquiera su

naturaleza,dentro de el paradigma de "desarrollo sostenido". Yo he escrito

un articulo llamado "A Simple Qualitative Dichotomy Approach for Uncovering

the Different Faces and Personalities of Development and a Sustainability

Model", el cual esta siendo revisado para publicacion en Brazil. Ahi se

demuestra que sostenibilidad tiene una sola cara y desarrollo sostenido

tiene varias caras. La estructura politica formada en Mexico entre el GO y

las NGOs que lo soportaron se podria representar en base a una forma

especifica de desarrollo dependiendo en la naturaleza de el GO y de las NGOs

en base a las posibilidades de desarrollo discutidas en este documento. Voy

a compartir este documento con ustedes en el futuro si es posible antes de

publicacion.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 4:53 AM

Subject: Fw: Las dos caras de las ONGs

> Del diario La Jornada de Mexico.

> (personalmente no concuerdo con varios puntos, pero tambien hay muchos

> aspectos relevantes para la comprension de la "micropolitica"). AD

> ________________________________________________________

> Las dos caras de las ONGs

>

> Por James Petras

> Profesor de Etica Política en la Universidad de Binghamton, Nueva York

> La Jornada, 8 de agosto del 2000

>

> Comentaristas e intelectuales se mostraron sorprendidos cuando muchos

> líderes y activistas de organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) se unieron

a

> la campaña electoral de Vicente Fox y, tras su victoria, esperan recibir

> puestos dentro de su nuevo gobierno. La idea de que líderes "progresistas"

> de las ONG se unan a un régimen abiertamente partidario del "libre

mercado"

> parece anómala. No obstante, un análisis más profundo de la historia y

> antecedentes de funcionarios de ONG en América Latina, así como de su

> ideología y nexos con donantes externos, podía haber vaticinado este

> escenario.

> En la transición hacia la política electoral en Chile, Bolivia, Argentina

y

> América Central, numerosos líderes de ONG se aliaron a regímenes

> neoliberales que utilizaron su experiencia organizacional y retórica

> progresista para controlar protestas populares y socavar movimientos de

> clases sociales.

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>, "Guido " <ggassi@unq.edu.ar>Subject: Re: [listatheomai] Introduction to deep ecologyDate: 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.

>

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Odo Subject: Diversity, niches, and consistencyDate: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:25:45 -0700

Dear Odo, thank you very much for your comments on more or less. I agree

that natural deversity is requiered for more miningful results and that

natural niches are needed to nurture diversity. I also agree that

qualitative pressures may be less damaging to natural diversity and niches

than quantitative forces. However, we also need local/global consistency en

terms of deversity(equal rights and obligations across cultures in

qualitative and quantitative terms) and niches(equal rights and obligations

across markets in qualitative and quantitative terms). The existence of

unequal rights and obligations under which diversity and niches operate is

in my view the problem, and money grows faster under these conditions, where

dominance, lack of regulation, and ago prevail. Because of this situation I

wrote another article to complement the more or less. I am sending copy of

it to you for your review. Please send me your comments when you have time.

The preservation plus article is on its way to publication now. The more or

less article is being reviewed. And the maximization article is available

for review now.

My warm greetings Odo.

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:28:13 -0700

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 wouldbe appropriate soon to create a sort of WORLD POVERTY FUND to take over thismission 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@wor..nk.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)

>

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Bunzl" <jzl@simpol.org>Subject: Re: CDFDate: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:10:07 -0700

Dear John, thank you for contacting me. I am working on a framework

based on sustainability theory that will show the skewed bias of the

current system of globalization in order to point out the need for

global institution consistency and to be able to induced the

sustinability working of local institutions in order to deal with the

dillemas of what I term "the coned world nature of the poverty problem",

where a lot if suck at the top, and therefore, little is left to the

bottom. This view leads to the notion of stremely skewed or dried

trickle down effects. Please, visit my webpage at

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz You will see there the type of

theory and thought I am using to put together these ideas of the need

for institutional consistency at the world level. But we should not

forget another point, which I raised in FAO and WB discussions, that

existing global institutions are subjected to internal goal

inconsistencies and/or external goal delinking. The problem I have

found with these ideas is that neither the United Nations appear to be

in a possition of pooling existing global institutions into a process of

efficiency linking because everybody like being their own boss as these

creates the so call "comparative advantages". Therefore, finding place

to publish these ideas may be difficult. When the work is done, I will

get in touch with you to share ideas, and perhaps you can lead me to

potential publication sources or perhaps produce something together.

I will read the article and reply to you if appropriate.

Greetings;

Sincerely yours,

Lucio

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

From: John Bunzl=20

To: munoz1@sprint.ca=20

Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 8:52 AM

Subject: CDF

Dear Lucio Munoz,

Going through some old files, I came across a message of yours

forwarded to me to which I did not have time to comment at the time. It

concerned your ideas for the global institutional structure required to

achieve sustainability. This included, amongst other things, the WTO (as

now) but also a WEO (World Environment Organisation), WSO (World Social

Organisation) and an SWO (Sustainable World Organisation). I hope you

may remember at least some of this.

Your message prompts me to send below an article principally about

reform of the WTO but which also touches on the desirability or

otherwise of other institutions and their relevance. I hope you find the

article interesting and, if so, would invite you to visit our website at

www.simpol.org. Any comments you may have would be much appreciated.

Text follows:

Reform the WTO! - But where are the Ideas?

The =91Battle of Seattle=92, the disaster that befell the

=91Millennium Round=92 of further trade liberalisation attempted by the

WTO in December 1999, was widely held by anti-globalisation NGOs and

other civil society groups as a major victory. But having successfully

forced their way on to the world stage with massive demonstrations and

slogans calling for reform of the WTO and an end to globalisation, the

enormous assortment of Green and other organisations now suddenly find

themselves struck dumb when faced with the inevitable and legitimate

question of what specific proposals they have for reform. Indeed, a

cursory examination of almost any recent internal agenda of these

organisations reveals their frantic search for a new =91big idea=92 or

other coherent response to the seemingly unstoppable =96 and its

proponents would say =91inevitable=92 =96 onslaught of free-trade and

globalisation. A recent interview of Lori Wallach, the activist widely

reputed to be behind the Seattle protests, demonstrates the problem: "If

given a free hand to reform world trade," she was asked no less than

three times by the interviewer, "what reforms would you specifically

propose?" The answers, beyond generalities, were difficult to find.

Furthermore, answers NGOs and activist groups do put forward are

undermined by the charge that they are un-elected bodies and their views

therefore have little democratic legitimacy whereas, whatever view one

may have of the WTO, it is at least the off-spring of democratically

elected governments.

John Bunzl=20

International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)

Website: www.simpol.org E-mail: info@simpol.org

=A9 2000. John M. Bunzl.

John Bunzl - Director

International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)

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

Georges Drouet - Director

ISPO Belgique

Dear John, thank you for contacting me. I am

working on a framework based on sustainability theory that will show the

skewed bias of the current system of globalization in order to point out

the need for global institution consistency and to be able to induced the

sustinability working of local institutions in order to deal with the dillemas of what I term "the coned world nature of the poverty problem", where a lot if suck at the top, and therefore, little is left to the bottom; This view leads to

the notion of extremely skewed or dried trickle down effects. Please, visit my

webpage at "http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz">

You will see there the type of theory and thought I am using to put

Together these ideas of the need for institutional consistency at the world

level.

But we should not forget another point, which I raised in FAO and WB

discussions, that existing global institutions are subjected to internal

goal inconsistencies and/or external goal delinking. The problem I have

found with these ideas is that neither the United Nations appear to be in a

possition of pooling existing global institutions into a process of efficiency

linking because everybody like being their own boss as these creates the so call

"comparative advantages". Therefore, finding place to publish

these ideas may be difficult. When the work is done, I will get in touch with

you to share ideas, and perhaps you can lead me to potential publication

sources or perhaps produce something together.

I will read the article and reply to you if appropriate.

Greetings

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

Reform the WTO! - But where are the Ideas? The Battle of Seattle, the disaster that befell the Millennium Round of further trade liberalisation attempted by the WTO in December 1999, was widely held by anti-globalisation NGOs and other civil society groups as a major victory. But having successfully forced their way on to the world stage with massive demonstrations and slogans calling for reform of the WTO and an end to globalisation, the enormous assortment of Green and other organisations now suddenly find themselves struck dumb when faced with the inevitable and legitimate question of what specific proposals they have for reform.

Indeed, a cursory examination of almost any recent internal agenda of these

organisations reveals their frantic search for a new big idea or other

coherent response to the seemingly unstoppable and its proponents

would say inevitable onslaught of free-trade and globalisation. A recent interview of Lori Wallach, the activist widely reputed to be behind the Seattle protests, demonstrates the problem: "If given a free hand to reform

world trade," she was asked no less than three times by the interviewer,

"what reforms would you specifically propose?" The answers, beyond

generalities, were difficult to find. Furthermore, answers NGOs and

activist groups put forward are undermined by the charge that they

are un-elected bodies and their views therefore have little democratic

legitimacy whereas, whatever view one may have of the WTO, it is at least the

off-spring of democratically elected governments.

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

To: "Randy Hayes" <rhayes@ran.org>

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:39:32 -0700

Dear Mr. Hayes, thank you for contacting me. I am working right now on some

ideas that may be used to advance a several levels view of poverty depending

on which types of economic, social, and environmental aspects are lacked in

order to look for a more practical alternative to most common economic

poverty line approaches. This way I believe we may be able to connect

sustainability theory to a basic poverty set. Then, I am planning to link

this to the proposal of creating the World Poverty Fund. When the ideas

take formal form, I would happily exchange them with you and benefit from

your feedback.

Please receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Randy Hayes <rhayes@ran.org>

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

Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 4:49 AM

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

> Lucio, could you send me a working definition of the word "poverty"?

Thanks

> very much.

> Randall Hayes, President

> Rainforest Action Network

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: "ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>,

"THEOMAI" <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>,

<vandam@sa.edu.ar>

Subject: Declaracion de pueblos Indigenas/Declaracion de paises subdesarrollados

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:52:49 -0700

Comentarios positivos:

Estimado Sr. van Dam, lei la declaracion con mucho cuidado. Llegue a la

conclusion que las preocupaciones de los pueblos indigenas son las mismas

que las que las preocupaciones en paises subdesarrolados en general son o

deben de ser. Las preocupaciones en la declaracion pueden ser sumarizadas

en PARTICIPACION, INCLUSION SYSTEMATICA, ACCESO DE INFORMACION, RECONOCIMIENTO DE DERECHOS PROPIOS, RESPONSABILIDADES CLARAS DE PARTE DEL SECTOR CONSIDERADO DOMINANTE, Y LA NECESIDAD DE MOVERSE DESPACIO PARA EVITAR SITUACIONES IMPREVISTAS. En pocas palabras, la declaracion es una afirmacion de voluntad de participacion sugeta a condiciones limitantes specificas, lo cual condiro yo es en esencia el pensamiento que todos los paises subdesarrollados tubieron cuando firmaron el acuerdo de Kyoto.

No veo en la declaracion una propuesta clara indigena o en mano

alternativa a las que se estan discutiendo actualmente o una propuesta

practica de ajustes que creen condiciones beneficiosas en cuanto derechos

obligaciones, enforzabilidad, y acuerdos. No hay a mi conocimiento propuestas

alternativas o de ajuste practicas en mano formuladas en paises

subdesarrolados tambien como bloque. Tambien veo que la declaracion

indigena no hace enfasis en responsibilidades locales, las cuales son

cruciales asumiento que los otros partidos respectan los acuerdos, y no hay enfasis en la necesidad de organizaciones indigenas de llevar acabo sus propias investigaciones para crear sus propios recursos de investigacion; esto tambien parece ser una situacion comun en paises subdesarrolados en general.

Considero esta declaracion un paso importante de parte de el movimiento

indigena, y considero que esta declaracion proporciona una gama de intereses

communes con paises subdesarrollados en general que podrian ser la base para

un frente comun de indigenas y no indigenas en paises subdesarrollados para

enfrentar las implicaciones de politicas ambientales que por seguro vienen.

En mi opinion, participacion sin ningun plan claro alternativo o de

ajuste que lleve a una situacion mejor que la que se hubiera obtenido en

ausencia de planes e ideas propias no es effectiva. Criticar no es

suficiente. Mi opinion humilde es que hoy que es casi un hecho que

participacion indigena, en particular, o participacion de paises

subdesarrollados en general, es deseable, los esfuerzos deben de dirigirse a

formular planes alternativos o de ajuste consistentes con los acuerdos para

inducir situaciones mas favorables. La ventaja hoy es que por primera ves

en la historia de desarrollo, en mi opinion, parece que hay una

cojuntura(especialmente ambiental en este momento) que no permite politicas

exclusivas ya que la acumulacion de externalidades tarde o temprano van a

afectar a todos, incluyendo el sector dominante. Una tierra, un problema

comun.

Otros aspectos importantes que se necesitan investigar para hacer

criticas mas objetivas a el status quo son:

a) bajo que tipo de mercados trabaja el protocolo Kyoto: Economico o

eco-economico?;

b) quienes son y cual es el role de suministradores y compradores de

servicios verdes?; cual seria el impacto de competion perfecta en mercados

imperfectos?;

c) como incorporar polucion(ambiental y/o social) local y global pasada,

actual, y futura?Nos deberiamos de preocupar por polucion ambiental futura

solamente? o nos deberiamos de preopar por polucion social y ambiental al

mismo tiempo hoy?;

d) que y cuanto estamos dispuestos a renunciar, a nivel local y/o global?en

relacion a consumo o/y produccion o sacrificios de sostenibilidad?;

e) cual es el impacto esperado de el protocolo the kyoto/iniciativas de

cambio climatico en relacion a los procesos de conversion/reversion de

tierras a differentes usos; en relacion a systemas existentes y futuros de

tenencias de tierras; y en la seguridad de producion de alimentos?,

Dificil como es, un camino sostenible tiene que ser encontrado lo mas

pronto posible, la llave parece estar an la mano de discusiones y

alternativas practicas y honestas. Parece que el tamano de el incendio y la

distancia de el observador determinan si si puede sentir el humo. Incendio

pequeno y distancia grande, el humo no se siente; incendio grande y enfrente

de el observador puede ser ahogador. El cambio climatico parece estar en la

etapa de ahogador.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <vandam@ua.edu.ar>

To: <ELAN@csf.colorado.edu>; <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>

Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 6:51 AM

Subject: [listatheomai] Declaracion del Primer Foro de Pueblos Indigenas

Internacional sobre Cambio Climatico

> Subject: Declaracion del Primer Foro de Pueblos Indigenas Internacional

sobre > Cambio Climatico

>

> Estimados Elaneros,

>

...

...

>

> Chris van Dam

>

> DECLARACIÓN DEL PRIMER FORO DE PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS INTERNACIONAL SOBRE

> CAMBIO CLIMATICO

>

> Lyón, Francia 4 - 6 de septiembre de 2000

........

.....

> Dadas las condiciones mencionadas recomendamos:

>

> 1. Que la conferencia de las partes reconozca el papel fundamental de

> los Pueblos Indígenas y sus organizaciones representativas en asuntos

> sobre cambio climático, la contribución que hacemos a la conservación

> del medio ambiente y establezca una acreditación de los Pueblos

> Indígenas en con estatus especial en todos los órganos y actividades

> relacionadas con el Cambio Climático.

> 2. Que la COP6 adopte la creación de un Grupo de Trabajo de los Pueblos

> Indígenas sobre cambio climático y se reconozca al Foro de

> los Pueblos Indígenas y proporcione el apoyo necesario entre otros

> mediante participación en todos niveles de discusión, toma de decisión e

> implementación, y facilitación de financiación necesaria para garantizar

> dicha participación y fortalecimiento de sus capacidades;

> 3. Que el Convenio y sus órganos ejecutivos creen mecanismos de

> divulgación de información y de discusión para los pueblos indígenas

> para que podamos definir nuestras posiciones y contribuciones;

> 4. Que el Convenio y sus procesos establezcan relaciones con otros

> espacios y procesos que afectan a los pueblos indígenas, entre otros en

> la Comisión sobre Derechos Humanos, la OIT, ECOSOC y el Foro Permanente

> a ser establecido, el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, el Foro sobre

> Bosques de las Naciones Unidas (UNFFC).

> 5. Que las decisiones sobre la implementación del Protocolo de Kyoto

> incluya provisiones especificas en donde se reconozca y garantice los

> derechos fundamentales de los Pueblos Indígenas; como los derechos

> territoriales.

> 6. Que el SBASTA recomiende a la COP 6 del CMCC para que todavía no

> adopten una decisión sobre las directrices del mecanismo de desarrollo

> limpio e implementen debates y discusiones sustantivos entre las partes

> interesadas, incluido los Pueblos Indígenas.

>

> Nuestros Pueblos consideran que la adopción de las preocupaciones y

> recomendaciones expresada en la presente declaración ayudarían a los

> pueblos del mundo a construir y contribuir a la reducción del cambio

> climático y alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible.

>

From: "Bunzl" <jbunzl@siol.org>

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

Subject: Re: CDF

Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 08:30:35 +0100

Lucio,

Many thanks for your reply which makes good sense and the work you are

doing should prove extremely valuable.

As a general point, and as you also suggest, the key problem is everyone

wanting to be his own boss to achieve comparative advantage. In other

words, the problem is competition; competition which, I believe, is

engendered by the ability of capital and corporations to move, or merely

threaten to move elsewhere. As my article suggests, today's global

economic, social and environmental problems are mainly the result of

this competition. So, if I may be so bold, our key task in a first step

towards sustainability is to find a way of getting from global

competition to global cooperation in such a way as to re-regulate global

capital and transnational corporations. This is what the article

explains. An outline plan for a possible solution can be found at

www.simpol.org. Will visit your webpage shortly.

Look forward to hearing from you.

John

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

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: John Bunzl=20

Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 10:10 PM

Subject: Re: CDF

Dear John, thank you for contacting me. I am working on a framework

based on sustainability theory that will show the skewed bias of the

current system of globalization in order to point out the need for

global institution consistency and to be able to induced the

sustinability working of local institutions in order to deal with the

dillemas of what I term "the coned world nature of the poverty problem",

where a lot if suck at the top, and therefore, little is left to the

bottom. This view leads to the notion of stremely skewed or dried

trickle down effects. Please, visit my webpage at

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz You will see there the type of

theory and thought I am using to put together these ideas of the need

for institutional consistency at the world level. But we should not

forget another point, which I raised in FAO and WB discussions, that

existing global institutions are subjected to internal goal

inconsistencies and/or external goal delinking. The problem I have

found with these ideas is that neither the United Nations appear to be

in a possition of pooling existing global institutions into a process of

efficiency linking because everybody like being their own boss as these

creates the so call "comparative advantages". Therefore, finding place

to publish these ideas may be difficult. When the work is done, I will

get in touch with you to share ideas, and perhaps you can lead me to

potential publication sources or perhaps produce something together.

I will read the article and reply to you if appropriate.

Greetings;

Sincerely yours,

Lucio

=20

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

From: John Bunzl=20

To: munoz1@sprint.ca=20

Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 8:52 AM

Subject: CDF

Dear Lucio Munoz,

Going through some old files, I came across a message of yours

forwarded to me to which I did not have time to comment at the time. It

concerned your ideas for the global institutional structure required to

achieve sustainability. This included, amongst other things, the WTO (as

now) but also a WEO (World Environment Organisation), WSO (World Social

Organisation) and an SWO (Sustainable World Organisation). I hope you

may remember at least some of this.

Your message prompts me to send below an article principally about

reform of the WTO but which also touches on the desirability or

otherwise of other institutions and their relevance. I hope you find the

article interesting and, if so, would invite you to visit our website at

www.simpol.org. Any comments you may have would be much appreciated.

Text follows:

Reform the WTO! - But where are the Ideas?

The Battle of Seattle, the disaster that befell the

=91Millennium Round=92 of further trade liberalisation attempted by the

WTO in December 1999, was widely held by anti-globalisation NGOs and

other civil society groups as a major victory. But having successfully

forced their way on to the world stage with massive demonstrations and

slogans calling for reform of the WTO and an end to globalisation, the

enormous assortment of Green and other organisations now suddenly find

themselves struck dumb when faced with the inevitable and legitimate

question of what specific proposals they have for reform. Indeed, a

cursory examination of almost any recent internal agenda of these

organisations reveals their frantic search for a new big idea or

other coherent response to the seemingly unstoppable and its

proponents would say inevitable onslaught of free-trade and

globalisation. A recent interview of Lori Wallach, the activist widely

reputed to be behind the Seattle protests, demonstrates the problem: "If

given a free hand to reform world trade," she was asked no less than

three times by the interviewer, "what reforms would you specifically

propose?" The answers, beyond generalities, were difficult to find.

Furthermore, answers NGOs and activist groups do put forward are

undermined by the charge that they are un-elected bodies and their views

therefore have little democratic legitimacy whereas, whatever view one

may have of the WTO, it is at least the off-spring of democratically

elected governments.

John Bunzl=20

International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)

P.O. Box 26547, London SE3 7YT, UK.

Website: www.simpol.org E-mail: info@simpol.org

From: "Hayes" <rhayes@n.org>To: "'Lucio Munoz'" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>Cc: "Carrere (E-mail)" .apc.org>,Goldsmith (E-mail)" "Bode (E-mail)" "Cockburn (E-mail)" "Lovins (E-mail)","McKibben (E-mail)"

Subject: World Poverty Fund & World Over-consumption Reduction Fund

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:30:15 -0700

Mr. Munoz, Your idea of a World Poverty Fund is important and I would like

follow it as it develops. I recently made a presentation calling for a World

Over-consumption Reduction Fund (WORF) at the State of the World Forum in

New York City. It is not an idea that I have developed very much, but the

logic is simple.

Many say that industrial society's unsustainable production and consumption

does more to disrupt the life support systems of the biosphere than anything

else. This leads to the eventual impoverishment of all life. Therefore,

shouldn't the UN system respond to that problem with as much fervor as we

try to get under-consumers up to the decent level?

I look forward to your updates.

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

From: Lucio Munoz [mailto:munoz@interchange.ubc.ca]

Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:40 PM

To: Hayes

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

Dear Mr. Hayes, thank you for contacting me. I am working right now on some

ideas that may be used to advance a several levels view of poverty depending

on which types of economic, social, and environmental aspects are lacked in

order to look for a more practical alternative to most common economic

poverty line approaches. This way I believe we may be able to connect

sustainability theory to a basic poverty set. Then, I am planning to link

this to the proposal of creating the World Poverty Fund. When the ideas

take formal form, I would happily exchange them with you and benefit from

your feedback.

Please receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Randy Hayes <rhayes@ran.org>

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

Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 4:49 AM

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

> Lucio, could you send me a working definition of the word "poverty"?

Thanks very much.

> Randall Hayes, President

> Rainforest Action Network

From: vandam@unsa.edu.arDate: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:51:28 -0300To: ELAN@csf.colorado.edu, listatheomai@unq.edu.arSubject: [listatheomai] Declaracion del Primer Foro de Pueblos Indigenas Internacional sobre Cambio Climatico

Subject: Declaracion del Primer Foro de Pueblos Indigenas Internacional sobre

Cambio Climatico

Estimados Elaneros,

les mando, para su conocimiento, la declaración siguiente que se elaboró

en el contexto del foro mencionado abajo. Hay una versión en Español y

una en Ingles.

Chris van Dam

DECLARACIÓN DEL PRIMER FORO DE PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS INTERNACIONAL SOBRE

CAMBIO CLIMATICO

Lyón, Francia 4 - 6 de septiembre de 2000

Contexto General

Los Pueblos Indígenas históricamente hemos y seguimos desempeñando un

papel activo en la conservación de los bosques, la diversidad biológica

y el mantenimiento de los ecosistemas cruciales para la prevención de

graves cambios climáticos. Nuestras ciencias ya habían advertido sobre

la severidad de los impactos que los modelos de 'desarrollo' occidental,

entre ellos la tala indiscriminada, explotación de petróleo, minería,

industrias con emisión de carbono, contaminantes orgánicos permanentes

(POPs), e insaciables patrones de consumo en los países

industrializados; dichos modelos no son sostenibles y están en contra de

la vida misma de la Madre Tierra y de todos los que en ella vivimos.

Los científicos de la sociedad occidental nos han calificado de

sentimentales, supersticiosos, y nos consideran un obstáculo para el

desarrollo. Curiosamente, los que antes ponían oídos sordos a nuestros

llamados, hoy se preocupan de la forma como su propio modelo de

desarrollo pone en peligro nuestra MADRE TIERRA.

La comunidad internacional ha sido forzada a reconocer "por fin" que el

cambio climático ha puesto en peligro la sobrevivencia misma de la

humanidad. A pesar de reconocer nuestro rol en la prevención a la hora

de firmar convenios internacionales como el de cambio climático,

nuevamente, nos niegan el derecho a participar en las discusiones

nacionales e internacionales que afectan directamente a nuestros pueblos

y territorios.

Nuestra oposición activa a la explotación del petrolero, de la madera y

minería ha contribuido a la prevención del rápido deterioro del sistema

climático. En retribución nuestros territorios han sido entregados como

concesiones a empresas nacionales y multinacionales para realizar

explotaciones de los recursos existentes en forma indiscriminada y

no-sostenible.

Cualquier decisión o acción que adopte la conferencia de las partes en

el Convenio Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático (UNFCCC)

o las recomendaciones de los otros organos del instrumento frente a este

problema sin nuestra participación, nos afectará, e incrementara los

impactos del cambio climático. Nuestros esfuerzos por mantener la

integridad de la Madre Tierra ha sido reconocida por las Naciones Unidas

y nuestra participación esta contenida en : La actual existencia de

Grupos de Trabajo sobre Poblaciones Indígenas bajo la Subcomisión de

Prevención de discriminación y de Protección a las Minorías de la ONU ;

El Grupo de Trabajo Para la elaboración de la Declaración Universal

sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la Comisión de derechos

humanos de la ONU; El Grupo de Trabajo sobre el articulo 8j) y Artículos

Conexos del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, que trata, entre otros

asuntos, sobre los conocimientos tradicionales; El reconocimiento de

conocimientos tradicionales en el diálogo intergubernamental sobre

bosques (respectivamente el Panel, el Foro Intergubernamental y el Foro

de las Naciones Unidas sobre Bosques); El Foro Permanente sobre

Cuestiones Indígenas, a ser establecido por el ECOSOC de la

ONU; El reconocimiento de los pueblos indígenas como actores centrales

en la Agenda 21, Capitulo 26, y la Declaración de Río; El Convenio 169

de la Organización Internacional de Trabajo (OIT) sobre pueblos

indígenas y tribales en paises independientes; La elaboración de

políticas de la Unión Europea, el Programa de Desarrollo de las Naciones

Unidas (PNUD) y el Banco Mundial sobre pueblos indígenas.

Antes de la firma del Protocolo de Kyoto, ya habíamos hecho

contribuciones concretas a la mitigación del cambio climático. Por

ejemplo, pueblos indígenas de la Amazonia han mantenido una alianza de

beneficios mutuos con Ciudades Europeas bajo un programa conjunto a

través de la Alianza del Clima -Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas

de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICA) y la Alianza Mundial de Pueblos Indígenas

y Tribales de los Bosques Tropicales.

SUMIDEROS

Nuestra relación intrínseca con nuestra Madre Tierra nos obliga a

oponernos a la inclusión de los sumideros bajo el (MDL), por que la

misma significa una forma reducida de considerar nuestro territorios y

tierras a la captación o liberación de GEI, lo cual es contrario a

nuestra cosmovisión y filosofia de vida. La inclusión de sumideros

provocara además una nueva forma de expropiación de nuestras tierras y

territorios y la violación de nuestros derechos que culminaria en una

nueva forma de colonialismo. La inclusión de los sumideros no ayudara en

nada a la reducción de las emisiones de GEI, al contrario proporcionaria

a los paises industrializados evitar reducir sus emisiones.

El Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio

El Mecanismos de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL) que establece el Protocolo de

Kyoto ofrece posibilidades positivas y también muy negativas. Entre

otros creemos que es una amenaza por la continua invasión y perdida de

nuestras tierras y territorios y la apropiación de ellas a través del

establecimiento de nuevas regímenes de áreas protegidas o la

privatización la . El MDL no seria una solución mientras no priorice la

reducción de emisión en los países desarrollados. Permite a los que

ensucian el medio ambiente, seguir con sus actividades. Nos oponemos

rotundamente a la inclusión de plantaciones, energía Nuclear y mega

hidroeléctricas, la energía del carbón. Además nos oponemos al

desarrollo de un mercado de carbono que ampliaría el alcance de

la globalización. En la medida de que el MDL , se dirija a apoyar la

lista positiva incluyendo la producción de energías alternativas

sostenibles puede ser un vehículo que ayude al desarrollo sostenible.

LULUCF

El uso de la tierra, el cambio del uso de la tierra y la silvicultura

(LULUCUF) del protocolo tiene profundas consecuencias en la relación de

las tierras y territorios indígenas en la medida que la misma no tome en

consideración las formas tradicionales de los derechos sobre la tierra

de los pueblos indígenas.

Se debe evitar que las definiciones de aforestación, reforestación y

deforestación contribuya a la destrucción de nuestros bosques tierras y

territorios y la violación de nuestros derechos colectivos e

individuales.

Una definición amplia de Actividades adicionales permitiría a los países

de anexo 1 cubrir la mayor parte de su compromiso de reducción de

emisiones con LULUCUF que significaría que nada se cambiaria y de

ninguna manera mitigaría el cambio climático. Rechazamos lo créditos de

carbono por las actividades adicionales.

FONDO DE ADAPTACIÓN

Nosotros, los Pueblos Indigenas, apoyamos energicamente la creación y

financiación del Fondo de Adaptación. Considerado que seguimos

constatando tristemente que la nuestra gente continua a sufrir por los

impactos aversos del cambio climático, exigimos la nuestra inclusión

como beneficiarios de dicho Fondo. El dinero por este Fondo debería ser

originado por las multas a los Paises del Anexo 1 en caso de no

cumplimiento alel alcanze de sus objetivos de reducción o en caso de

contabilización de carbono o inventarios nacionales no puntuales.

ACTIVIDADES DE IMPLEMENTACION CONJUNTA (AIC)

Nosotros, los Pueblos Indígenas, creemos necesario que el UNFCCC

(literal) apoye la necesidad de los Pueblos Indígenas de expresar sus

críticas y evaluaciones independientes sobre los proyectos AIJ y sus

impactos e implicaciones por los derechos y las tierras de nuestra

gente.

ARTICULOS 5, 7 Y 8

Nosotros, los Pueblos Indígenas, proponemos que se reconozca a las

organizaciones y sus expertos propuestas por estas a que sean incluidos

en los estudios de impacto ambiental y análisis del cambio climático en

los Países del Anexo 1 previstos en los artículos 5, 7 y 8 del

protocolo.

FOMENTO DE CAPACIDADES

Nosotros, los Pueblos Indígenas, manifestamos nuestro deseo de ser

incluidos en las iniciativas de fortalecimiento de capacidades de

UNFCCC. En ese sentido proponemos capacitaciones especificas y

especiales para los Pueblos Indígenas. Dicha creación de capacidades

fortalecería nuestra habilidad en ejercer nuestro derecho a una plena

participación en las discusiones sobre el cambio climático.

CUMPLIMENTO

Nosotros, los Pueblos Indígenas, demandamos la cancelación de los

créditos de carbono y la creación de multas para los Países del Anexo 1

en caso de quiebra en el incumplimiento de sus objetivos de reducción o

en caso de contabilización de carbono o inventarios nacionales no

puntuales.

Dadas las condiciones mencionadas recomendamos:

1. Que la conferencia de las partes reconozca el papel fundamental de

los Pueblos Indígenas y sus organizaciones representativas en asuntos

sobre cambio climático, la contribución que hacemos a la conservación

del medio ambiente y establezca una acreditación de los Pueblos

Indígenas en con estatus especial en todos los órganos y actividades

relacionadas con el Cambio Climático.

2. Que la COP6 adopte la creación de un Grupo de Trabajo de los Pueblos

Indígenas sobre cambio climático y se reconozca al Foro de

los Pueblos Indígenas y proporcione el apoyo necesario entre otros

mediante participación en todos niveles de discusión, toma de decisión e

implementación, y facilitación de financiación necesaria para garantizar

dicha participación y fortalecimiento de sus capacidades;

3. Que el Convenio y sus órganos ejecutivos creen mecanismos de

divulgación de información y de discusión para los pueblos indígenas

para que podamos definir nuestras posiciones y contribuciones;

4. Que el Convenio y sus procesos establezcan relaciones con otros

espacios y procesos que afectan a los pueblos indígenas, entre otros en

la Comisión sobre Derechos Humanos, la OIT, ECOSOC y el Foro Permanente

a ser establecido, el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, el Foro sobre

Bosques de las Naciones Unidas (UNFFC).

5. Que las decisiones sobre la implementación del Protocolo de Kyoto

incluya provisiones especificas en donde se reconozca y garantice los

derechos fundamentales de los Pueblos Indígenas; como los derechos

territoriales.

6. Que el SBASTA recomiende a la COP 6 del CMCC para que todavía no

adopten una decisión sobre las directrices del mecanismo de desarrollo

limpio e implementen debates y discusiones sustantivos entre las partes

interesadas, incluido los Pueblos Indígenas.

Nuestros Pueblos consideran que la adopción de las preocupaciones y

recomendaciones expresada en la presente declaración ayudarían a los

pueblos del mundo a construir y contribuir a la reducción del cambio

climático y alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible.

Firmado por los Pueblos Indígenas y representantes de comunidades

locales siguientes, presentes en la conferencia de las partes en el

Convenio Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático (UNFCCC)

celebrada en Lyon, Francia, 8 de septiembre de 2000:

Parshu Ram Tamang, Nepal International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples of the Tropical Forests

Alejandro Argumedo, Peru Indigenous Knowledge Program

Mario Ibarra, Geneva International Indian Treaty Council

Clark Peteru, Samoa Indigenous Peoples' Biodiversity Network

Hector Huertas, Panama MesoAmerican Indigenous Organizations on Climate

Change

Kalimba Zephyrin, Rwanda Association for the Promotion of Batwans

Edwin Vasquez, Peru Inter-ethnic Development Association of the Peruvian

Jungle (AIDESEP)

Johnson Cerda, Ecuador Amazon Alliance

Antonio Jacanamijoy, Columbia Coordinating Body of the Indigenous

Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA)

Jose Luis Gonzalez, Venezuela The Indigenous Federation of Bolivar

Hendro Sangkoyo, Indonesia Consortium for Community Forest Systems

Raymond de Chavez, Philippines TEBTEBBA Foundation, Indigenous Peoples

International Center for Policy, Research & Education

Sam Ferrer, Philippines Climate Action Network

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

DECLARATION OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ON

CLIMATE CHANGE Lyon, France September 4-6, 2000

Introduction We, the Indigenous Peoples, have historically played an

active role in the conservation of eco-systems crucial to the prevention

of climate change such as forests, wetlands and coastal and marine

areas. Long ago, our sciences foretold of the severe impacts of Western

"development" models based on indiscriminate clear-cutting, oil

exploitation, mining, carbon-emitting industries, permanent organic

pollutants and the insatiable consumption of the industrialized

countries. Today, these unsustainable models threaten the very life of

Mother Earth and the lives of all of us who are her children.

The scientists of Western society have dismissed us as sentimental and

superstitious and accused us of being an obstacle to development.

Paradoxically, those that previously turned deaf ears to our warnings,

now are dismayed because their own model of "development' endangers our

Mother Earth.

At long last, the international community has been forced to recognize

that climate change threatens the very survival of humanity. Despite the

recognition of our role in preventing global warming, when it comes time

to sign international conventions like the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, once again, our right to participate in

national and international discussions that directly affect our Peoples

and territories is denied.

Our active opposition to oil exploration, logging and mining helps

prevent the accelerated deterioration of the climate. Nonetheless, our

territories have been handed over to national and multinational

corporations which exploit our natural resources in an indiscriminate

and unsustainable fashion.

Any decision or action that the Conference of Parties of the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or

recommendations to other organs must include our full and effective

participation. Our efforts to maintain the integrity of Mother Earth has

been recognized by the United Nations and our participation includes and

established by:

The Working Group on Indigenous Populations under the Subcomission of

Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities of the UN;

The Working Group on Indigenous Populations under the Subcommission of

Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities of the UN;

The Working Group on the Draft Declaration of Indigenous Peoples of the

Commission on Human Rights of the UN; The Working Group on Article 8 (j)

and Connex Articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity which

includes, among other issues, systems of traditional knowledge; the

recognition of traditional knowledge systems in the Intergovernmental

Dialogue on Forests (including the Panel, Intergovernmental Forum and

the United Nations Forum on Forests); The Permanent Forum on Indigenous

Affairs to be established by ECOSOC in the United Nations; the

recognition of the Indigenous indigenous as Major Groups in Agenda 21,

chapter 26, and the Rio Declaration; the International Labor

Organizations Convention 169 on Indigenuos and Tribal Peoples in

independent countries; the elaboration of policies of the European

Union, the United Nations Development (UNDP) and the World Bank

guidelines on Indigenous Peoples.

Before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, we had already made concrete

political contributions to mitigating climate change. For example,

Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon forged a mutually beneficial alliance

with European Cities in joint program of the Climate Alliance, the

Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) and

the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the

Tropical Forests.

Key positions of Indigenous Peoples present at the UNFCCC 13th Session

of Subsidiary Bodies Meeting are as follows:

SINKS Our intrinsic relation with Mother Earth obliges us to oppose the

inclusion of sinks in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) because it

reduces our sacred land and territories to mere carbon sequestration

which is contrary to our cosmovision and philosophy of life. Sinks in

the CDM would constitute a worldwide strategy for expropriating our

lands and territories and violating our fundamental rights that would

culminate in a new form of colonialism. Sinks in the CDM would not help

to reduce GHG emissions, rather it would provide industrialized

countries with a ploy to avoid reducing their emissions at source.

Clean Development Mechanism The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

established by the Kyoto Protocol offers both negative and positive

possibilities. The CDM will not be a solution to global warming if it

diffuses or obfuscates the responsibility of industrialized countries to

reduce their GHG. It must not be used to allow Annex I countries to

continue poisoning the environment. Sinks in the CDM pose the threat of

invasion and lost of our land and territories by establishing new

regimes for protected areas and privatization. We emphatically oppose

the inclusion of sinks, plantations, nuclear power, megahydroelectric

and coal. Furthermore, we oppose the development of a carbon market that

would broaden the scope of globalization. However, we do support the

Positive List including the development of alternative energies that

foster sustainable development.

Public Participation Indigenous Peoples demand that the principles of

transparency, prior informed consultation and consent, independent third

party verification and monitoring, benefit sharing, risk reduction,

appeals mechanism and compensation be guaranteed. Furthermore, we

emphasize the need for these principles to be applied in culturally and

linguistically appropriate manners.

LULUCF Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) in the Protocol

has profound consequences for our lands and territories since it does

not recognize the land rights nor customary land use of Indigenous

Peoples.

The definitions of afforestation, reforestation and deforestation must

not contribute to the destruction of our native eco-systems, forests,

lands, territories nor to the violation of our collective and individual

rights.

A broad definition of "additional activities" would permit Annex I

countries to meet the most of their emissions reduction targets with

LULUCF and continue with "business as usual" which would not mitigate

climate change at all. We reject granting carbon credits for "additional

activities."

Adaptation Fund We enthusiastically support the creation and funding of

the Adaptation Fund. Since we sadly foresee that our Peoples will

continue to suffer the adverse impacts of climate change, we demand our

inclusion as beneficiaries of such a Fund. Monies for this Fund should

be garnered from punitive fines for the failure of Annex I countries to

meet their emissions reduction targets or for inaccurate carbon

accounting or national inventories.

AIJ Pilot Phase We deem it necessary that the UNFCCC support the need of

Indigenous Peoples to conduct our own independent critique and

evaluation of AIJ projects and their impacts and ramifications for the

rights and lands of our Peoples.

Articles 5, 7 & 8 We propose that our Peoples and experts be included

in the assessment and analysis of climate change in Annex I countries

provided for in Articles 5, 7 & 8.

Capacity Building Since our Peoples are on the frontlines of the adverse

impacts of climate change, we must be included in the UNFCCC capacity

building initiatives and propose that special, specific capacity

building be undertaken for Indigenous Peoples. Such capacity building

would fortify our ability to exercise our right to full participation in

the climate change negotiations.

Compliance We call for the cancellation of carbon credits and punitive

fines if Annex I countries fail to meet their emission reduction targets

or submit inaccurate Carbon accounting or inventories.

Given these considerations, we recommend:

1. That the Conference of Parties VI recognize the fundamental role of

Indigenous Peoples and their organizations in climate change prevention

and environmental conservation and accredit Indigenous Peoples with

special status in all the organs, activities and COPs of the UNFCCC.

2. That COP 6 approve the creation of a Working Group of Indigenous

Peoples on Climate Change, as well as, recognizing the Forum of

Indigenous People on Climate Change. Furthermore that COP 6 provide the

necessary support including full effective participation in all levels

of discussion, decision-making and implementation, as well as ensuring

that the necessary funding be provided to guarantee said participation

and to strengthen its capacity;

3. That the UNFCCC and its processes establish relations with other

spaces and processes that affect Indigenous Peoples, including the

Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC, the pending Permanent Forum of

Indigenous Peoples, the International Labor Organization, the Convention

on Biodiversity and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests among others.

4. That the UNFCCC and its Secretariat create, provide and distribute

information on the negotiations and process for Indigenous Peoples to

further foster our participation, positions adoption and contributions;

5. That the decisions on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

include provisions that recognize and establish all the fundamental

rights of Indigenous Peoples.

6. That the Subsidiary Bodies recommend that COP 6 refrain from adopting

guidelines for the CDM until substantial debate and discussions

including Indigenous Peoples occurs.

We, the Indigenous Peoples, consider that the concerns and

recommendations expressed in this declaration will help the peoples of

the world to reduce climate change and contribute to sustainable

development.

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

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

"THEOMAI" <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>, <vandam@unsa.edu.ar>

Subject: Declaracion de pueblos Indigenas/Declaracion de paises subdesarrollados

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:52:49 -0700

Comentarios positivos:

Estimado Sr. van Dam, lei la declaracion con mucho cuidado. Llegue a la

conclusion que las preocupaciones de los pueblos indigenas son las mismas

que las que las preocupaciones en paises subdesarrolados en general son o

deben de ser. Las preocupaciones en la declaracion pueden ser sumarizadas

en PARTICIPACION, INCLUSION SYSTEMATICA, ACCESO DE INFORMACION, RECONOCIMIENTO DE DERECHOS PROPIOS, RESPONSABILIDADES CLARAS DE PARTE DEL SECTOR CONSIDERADO DOMINANTE, Y LA NECESIDAD DE MOVERSE DESPACIO PARA EVITAR SITUACIONES IMPREVISTAS. En pocas palabras, la declaracion es una afirmacion de voluntad de participacion sugeta a condiciones limitantes specificas, lo cual condiro yo es en esencia el pensamiento que todos los paises subdesarrollados tubieron cuando firmaron el acuerdo de Kyoto.

No veo en la declaracion una propuesta clara indigena o en mano

alternativa a las que se estan discutiendo actualmente o una propuesta

practica de ajustes que creen condiciones beneficiosas en cuanto derechos

obligaciones, enforzabilidad, y acuerdos. No hay a mi conocimiento propuestas

alternativas o de ajuste practicas en mano formuladas en paises

subdesarrolados tambien como bloque. Tambien veo que la declaracion

indigena no hace enfasis en responsibilidades locales, las cuales son

cruciales asumiento que los otros partidos respectan los acuerdos, y no hay enfasis en la necesidad de organizaciones indigenas de llevar acabo sus propias investigaciones para crear sus propios recursos de investigacion; esto tambien parece ser una situacion comun en paises subdesarrolados en general.

Considero esta declaracion un paso importante de parte de el movimiento

indigena, y considero que esta declaracion proporciona una gama de intereses

communes con paises subdesarrollados en general que podrian ser la base para

un frente comun de indigenas y no indigenas en paises subdesarrollados para

enfrentar las implicaciones de politicas ambientales que por seguro vienen.

En mi opinion, participacion sin ningun plan claro alternativo o de

ajuste que lleve a una situacion mejor que la que se hubiera obtenido en

ausencia de planes e ideas propias no es effectiva. Criticar no es

suficiente. Mi opinion humilde es que hoy que es casi un hecho que

participacion indigena, en particular, o participacion de paises

subdesarrollados en general, es deseable, los esfuerzos deben de dirigirse a

formular planes alternativos o de ajuste consistentes con los acuerdos para

inducir situaciones mas favorables. La ventaja hoy es que por primera ves

en la historia de desarrollo, en mi opinion, parece que hay una

cojuntura(especialmente ambiental en este momento) que no permite politicas

exclusivas ya que la acumulacion de externalidades tarde o temprano van a

afectar a todos, incluyendo el sector dominante. Una tierra, un problema

comun.

Otros aspectos importantes que se necesitan investigar para hacer

criticas mas objetivas a el status quo son:

a) bajo que tipo de mercados trabaja el protocolo Kyoto: Economico o

eco-economico?;

b) quienes son y cual es el role de suministradores y compradores de

servicios verdes?; cual seria el impacto de competion perfecta en mercados

imperfectos?;

c) como incorporar polucion(ambiental y/o social) local y global pasada,

actual, y futura?Nos deberiamos de preocupar por polucion ambiental futura

solamente? o nos deberiamos de preopar por polucion social y ambiental al

mismo tiempo hoy?;

d) que y cuanto estamos dispuestos a renunciar, a nivel local y/o global?en

relacion a consumo o/y produccion o sacrificios de sostenibilidad?;

e) cual es el impacto esperado de el protocolo the kyoto/iniciativas de

cambio climatico en relacion a los procesos de conversion/reversion de

tierras a differentes usos; en relacion a systemas existentes y futuros de

tenencias de tierras; y en la seguridad de producion de alimentos?,

Dificil como es, un camino sostenible tiene que ser encontrado lo mas

pronto posible, la llave parece estar an la mano de discusiones y

alternativas practicas y honestas. Parece que el tamano de el incendio y la

distancia de el observador determinan si si puede sentir el humo. Incendio

pequeno y distancia grande, el humo no se siente; incendio grande y enfrente

de el observador puede ser ahogador. El cambio climatico parece estar en la

etapa de ahogador.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <vandam@unsa.edu.ar>

To: <ELAN@csf.colorado.edu>; <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>

Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 6:51 AM

Subject: [listatheomai] Declaracion del Primer Foro de Pueblos Indigenas

Internacional sobre Cambio Climatico

> Subject: Declaracion del Primer Foro de Pueblos Indigenas Internacional

sobre > Cambio Climatico

>

> Estimados Elaneros,

>

...

...

>

> Chris van Dam

>

> DECLARACIÓN DEL PRIMER FORO DE PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS INTERNACIONAL SOBRE

> CAMBIO CLIMATICO

>

> Lyón, Francia 4 - 6 de septiembre de 2000

........

.....

> Dadas las condiciones mencionadas recomendamos:

>

> 1. Que la conferencia de las partes reconozca el papel fundamental de

> los Pueblos Indígenas y sus organizaciones representativas en asuntos

> sobre cambio climático, la contribución que hacemos a la conservación

> del medio ambiente y establezca una acreditación de los Pueblos

> Indígenas en con estatus especial en todos los órganos y actividades

> relacionadas con el Cambio Climático.

> 2. Que la COP6 adopte la creación de un Grupo de Trabajo de los Pueblos

> Indígenas sobre cambio climático y se reconozca al Foro de

> los Pueblos Indígenas y proporcione el apoyo necesario entre otros

> mediante participación en todos niveles de discusión, toma de decisión e

> implementación, y facilitación de financiación necesaria para garantizar

> dicha participación y fortalecimiento de sus capacidades;

> 3. Que el Convenio y sus órganos ejecutivos creen mecanismos de

> divulgación de información y de discusión para los pueblos indígenas

> para que podamos definir nuestras posiciones y contribuciones;

> 4. Que el Convenio y sus procesos establezcan relaciones con otros

> espacios y procesos que afectan a los pueblos indígenas, entre otros en

> la Comisión sobre Derechos Humanos, la OIT, ECOSOC y el Foro Permanente

> a ser establecido, el Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica, el Foro sobre

> Bosques de las Naciones Unidas (UNFFC).

> 5. Que las decisiones sobre la implementación del Protocolo de Kyoto

> incluya provisiones especificas en donde se reconozca y garantice los

> derechos fundamentales de los Pueblos Indígenas; como los derechos

> territoriales.

> 6. Que el SBASTA recomiende a la COP 6 del CMCC para que todavía no

> adopten una decisión sobre las directrices del mecanismo de desarrollo

> limpio e implementen debates y discusiones sustantivos entre las partes

> interesadas, incluido los Pueblos Indígenas.

>

> Nuestros Pueblos consideran que la adopción de las preocupaciones y

> recomendaciones expresada en la presente declaración ayudarían a los

> pueblos del mundo a construir y contribuir a la reducción del cambio

> climático y alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible.

>

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

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

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

munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: What are 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 passed 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

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

From: Mani <mmani@worldbank.org>

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

Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 2:01 PM

Subject: [env-sust] Welcome to the Discussions

> Welcome to the Discussions

>

>

> Introduction

>

> The environmental record in low- and middle-income countries is not

> improving. .

> ....

> In response to these trends, as well as growing concerns about unplanned

> negative effects of projects it finances, the World Bank has introduced a

> number of initiatives to promote environmental sustainability. .

> .....

> The Bank developed a variety of different instruments in support of

> environmental stewardship, which make up the greater share of its

> environmental activities. .

> ....

> The benchmarks against which Bank performance is being evaluated are the

> Bank's operational policies and procedures and good practices

> (OPs/BPs/GPs). Where there are gaps in the policy framework,

> authoritative statements of the Bank's objectives (from published

> documents and undertakings) will serve as appropriate benchmarks>

> We ask that you feel free to address any of them. We also request that

> those who feel there are omissions in this discussion send messages that

> address other themes and questions. English will be the preferred mode of

> communication. However, participants are welcome to share their comments

> in Spanish, French and Portuguese which will be posted. Regular summaries

> of the discussions will be made available.

>

> We look forward to hearing from you.

>

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

To: "ENVSUSTAINANILITY" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Ranji >" <RGeorge@gov>

munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: Re: [env-sust] Zero emission technologies are needed: fuel cells, renewable energy, 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 <RGee@aqmd.gov>

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.

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "ENVSUSTAINANILITY" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Ranji >" <RGge@aqmd.gov>

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: Re: [env-sust] 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: <RGrge@aqmd.gov>

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

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "ENVSUSTAINANILITY" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "P.V.Kasyanov"

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

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

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:03:18 -0700

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. The banks definition does not include yet those

social externalities you believe are very important to consider.

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).

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..

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.

Thank you for sharing your views and comments are welcome;

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Independent Researcher

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

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

From: P.V.Kasyanov

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

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:14 AM

Subject: [env-sust] Response to Moderator Questions

[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.

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?

.....

...

...

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

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

To: "ENVSUSTAINANILITY" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Thomas E. Pascoe"

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: Re: [env-sust] Organic Agricultural Initiatives: Big or Small

Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:03:47 -0700

Dear Friends, the comments from Mr. Pascoe highglights a commonality that

appears to exist between developed and developing countries, which it is

usually missed by most people, that of governments being able to control,

usually very efficiently, their head, but not their feets. This observation

is very relevant when analysing the discourse of big is better over small is

better. The truth is that either of these approaches is as likely to fail

if they are not subjected to efficient monitoring, where efficient

monitoring means internal and external monitoring at the same time

The situation can be summarize as follows:

a) because governments can control better their head, than their feet, big

projects are easier to control and handle, plus if there is monitoring, it

is internal only;

b) because the feets feel unattended and forgotten, then small projects and

programs that are decentralized are seen as the way to go, plus again, if

there is monitoring, it is internal only;

c) top level controlled systems and low level controlled systems are as

likely or almost as likely to break down in the absence of external

monitoring;

d) the above appears to be true whether you are in a developed country or in

a developing country; and therefore I am not surprised to hear that in the

EU projects developed by the feets(local projects) are not supported by the

head(government officials);

e) more over moving from big projects to small programs in a disorganized

fashion can lead to "local project congestion", where there maybe a tendency

to local stakeholder rush to capitalize in the vaccum created when moving

our preferences from big to small;

d) one way of easing the fears of losing power at the head and of

efficiently reaching the feet may be the creation of a separate institution,

in each country, developed or not, in charge solely with the external

monitoring of big and small projects, from government or non-government

institutions; and to provide an orderly transition. Then sustainable

development innitiatives, whether local or regional or national can have a

better and systematic change at succeeding as a result of the existence of

internal and external monitoring at the same time.

Your comments are welcome;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Independent Researcher

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

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

From: Thomas E. Pascoe <

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

Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 8:54 AM

Subject: [env-sust] Organic Agricultural Initiatives

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

> message]

>

.

>

> Hugh centralized projects, often of essential need, hardly contribute to

> Sustainable Development. In decentralized projects more valid inputs to SD

> can be achieved. The recent success of many micro credit initiatives

> demonstrates how much can be achieved with how little money. We should

> see this in relation to the insufficiency of WB funding initiatives to

> foster organic agriculture initiatives in the developing world.

>

.

>

> Micro credit systems, organic agriculture and decentralization of logistic

> chains should be focus of WB policies.

>

> Thanks for your attention,

>

> Thomas Pascoe MSC

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "P.V.Kasyanov" <P.Kasyanov@cppi.ru>Subject: Re: Re[2]: [env-sust] Response to Moderator Questions /thanks for message

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:22:33 -0700

Dear Mr. Kasyanov, thank you for your message. Please, visit my webpage

called TRUE SUSTAINABILITY at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz you may find some of its material interesting. To me frank and direct discussion is the best, as you said, in

this message we may not have much time left to find a truly sustainable path

for the CRAZY BUS EARTH. My warm greetings;

Lucio

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

From: P.V.Kasyanov

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:42 AM

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

>

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: <tpascoe@watertrust.com>Subject: Re: env-sus

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:15:56 -0700

Dear Mr. Pascoe, thank you for contacting me. I do not undertand the

context of your comment below, but l would like to tell you that action

comes from the conjunctural interaction of both the rich and the poor

and this is called the duality of environmenal degradation. However,

usually one extreme tends to blame the other extreme without seriously

thinking about its own contribution.

Please, visit my webpage called TRUE SUSTAINABILITY at

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

You may find some of the ideas there interesting.

Please receive my warm greetings;

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

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

From: Thomas E. Pascoe

To: munoz1@sprint.ca

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:39 AM

Subject: env-sus

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

since we left the caves. Where is action?

Thomas

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

To: "Francisco <…com.mx>

Subject: Re: respuesta

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:17:28 -0700

Estimado Francisco, gracias por contactarme. No entiendo como su pregunta se

relaciona con mis contribuciones, me imagino, a la discusion en

sostenibilidad ambiental. Me podria por favor indicarme la coneccion que

usted mira. Por el otro lado, hay variar respuestas posibles a su pregunta

dependiendo de el angulo que usted mire a los humanos y dependiendo de el

tipo de sistema social que usted considere, lo cual se podria conectar a mis

puntos de vista, por favor visitar mi pagina en el internet llamada TRUE

SUSTAINABILITY http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz puede que encuentre

ideas de su interest;

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

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

From: Francisco <fra…@yahoo.com.mx>

To: <munoz@unixg.ubc.ca>

Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 6:10 AM

Subject: respuesta

> 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.

>

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

To: "ENVSUSTAINANILITY" <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Taufiq Alimi" >

munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: 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

> >

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "Vandana Bhatnagar" Subject: Re: [env-sust] Open Discourse or Closed Discourse

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:41:17 -0700

Dear Mr. Bhatnagar, your thoughts here are consistent with my views and with

the limitations that need to be overcome if a development framework based on

this line of thinking can actually be implemented. The problem so far is

that nobody is interested in developing a true sustainability theory as most

people are interested in a particular position in development. To me the

groups you mentioned do not practice true sustainability. I have taken the

lonely task to put forward the fundamental bases of true sustainability and

I started a few months ago with my personal long-term committment to this.

I am pretty sure you will find my thought in this area interesting, please

visit my webpage called TRUE SUSTAINABILITY

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz So far all comments from all fronts of

the "sustainable development" mix have been positive. My aim is to use

western knowledge in a different way to induced change(theoretical or/and

practical) favourable to all countries, including my region of birth,

Central America. Central to this aim is the need to present complex issues

and ideas in simple terms, which is what I have attemped with my

contributions to the world bank discussion.

Thank you very much for contacting me and take care;

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

From: Vandana Bhatnagar

To: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:16 PM

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 sustainability

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)

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: "cade" <cade@terra.com.pe>

Subject: Re:_CADE-Peru

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:32:59 -0700

Estimado Sr. Molina, disculpe lo tarde de mi respuesta. Lei la

informacion enviada con bastante interes. Mi tesis se relaciona con la

deforestacion en Centro America y yo estoy en el proceso de actualizar

informacion sobre percepciones de deforestacion con el objeto de

proponer projects in linea con el suyo.

El problema que usted esta tratando de atacar esta en el nexo

poblacion(social)-Bosque(ambiente); y se propone educar a la poblacion

en como hacer un buen uso de el ambiente(bosque), si no estoy

equivocado. Me parece a mi que en condiciones de pobreza(como se

menciona), educacion sin incentivos ambientales o economicos, auque

ayudaria, no es una salucion duradera. La cojuntura de hoy permite

considerar incentivos ambientales y esto cambia totalmente el panorama.

Yo sugeriria, redisenar el projecto un poquito mas, para hacerlo no solo

mas atractivo pero talves un poco mas aceptable y estable. En mi

humilde opinion, recomiendo la elaboracion de un projecto con los

siguientes componentes:

a) recoger informacion social y ambiental relevante a la zona dentro de

el Projecto:

b) usar esta informacion para determinar los incentivos economicos o

ambientales que se pueden encontrar;

c) usar una metodologia participativa para priorizar incentivos

economicos o ambientales;

d) proponer sub-projectos basado en el diseno e implimentacion de esos

objetivos prioritarios;

e) implementar el projecto y sub-projectos mano a mano con(EDUCACION)

promocion, capacitacion y asistencia tecnica:

f) recoger informacion social y ambiental para determinar cambios en el

componte social y ambiental, positivos o negativos, para validar la

eficacia de los incentivos prioritarios.

Visite mi pagina llamada DEFORESTATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA, puede que la

metodologia usada ahi para recoger, analysar, y determinar opciones

usando metodologicas qualitativas comparativas sea de su interes. Es

rapida, costo-efectiva y con bases fuertes cientificas para evitar

agarrarse solo de conocimientos practicos, lo cual aca se considera una

posicion debil.

Espero que mis comentarios sean beneficiosos para usted y su

organizacion y sientase con libertad de intercambiar ideas con migo.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

Yo soy miembro de THEOMAI / Argentina y en ese sitio hay dos

publicaciones mias relacionadas a desarrollo sostenido/sostenibilidad

que le pueden interesar.

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

From: cade=20

To: Lucio Munoz=20

Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:20 PM

Subject: CADE-Peru

Mr. Lucio Munoz:

De mi mayor consideracion:

Nos parece muy importante la comunicacion que venimos recibiendo,

el cual es de utilidad para poder difundir en nuestro medio, pues que

es de nuestro interes aunar esfuerzos para cambiar de mentalidad a

nuestra poblacion de baja conciencia ambiental; por lo mismo nuestra

preocupacion es informar, educar y comunicar, adehirir una asistencia

tecnica la sostenibilidad del medioambiente en la sierra central del

Peru.

Por lo mismo, alcanzamos un resumen de perfil de proyecto que

quisieramos compartir con usted y la posibilidad de poder implementar en

beneficio de la protecci=F3n del medio ambiente. A la espera de

mantener comunicacion, me suscribo de usted.

Antrop. Jose Molina Cordova

CADE-PER=DA

October 31/2000/World Bank's enivironmental sustainability coference: comment on financing CP and/or PP

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>To: <env-sust@lists.worldbank.org>

munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: Re: [env-sust] 'Financing CP and/or PP'

Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:23:52 -0800

Dear Friends, as sustainability in general is not the main issue of this

conference, I will limit my reply to say that

I agree with Mr. Mebratu with the following:

a) that it will be futile to address environmental sustainability in the

developing world without addressing poverty;

b) that it will be futile to to address environmental sustainability in

developed countries without addressing affluent consumption;

c) that economy, environment, and society are interwined in practice;

d) that this undermine sectoral sustainability views

However, the above if true only if you look at world bank issues from the

general sustainability point of view. If you look at issues from a

component plus point of view, then you can not either scape or deny

dichtotomy or trichotomy development planning. Or can we?

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

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

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

From: Desta Mebratu

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

Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 5:57 AM

Subject: [env-sust] 'Financing CP and/or PP'

> 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.

>

> 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

>

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>Subject: Compliance, maximization, partial regulation, and system dominanceDate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:48:12 -0800

Dear Mr. Switzer and friends, so far the discussion has been on the

practical issues of compliance, not on the theoretical issues that can help

in determining effective compliance mechanisms. I see non-complaince as a

state deviated from sustainability, and I see sustainability theory as a

guiding tool here. I believe that most of you may agree that maximization

goals, partial regulation, and system dominance can be majors factors in

determining compliance behavior as they may ensure the existence of high

benefits even if cut polluting as the polluter can pay the penalty at home

and still profit from this behavior or may display what I call the "TRASH

AND KEEP SYNDROME", where polluters simply move to other places which lower

or no complaince costs while usually still keeping their home address. The

paper is in draft form right now and it is called: "Maximization, Partial

Regulation, and System Dominance: Can they be Drivers of Sustainability?.

Hope it will be out formally soon for discussion and positive exchange of

ideas.

My warm greetings to all;

Lucio Munoz

Independent Researcher

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

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

From: Jason Switzer

To: Environmental Compliance E-Consultation <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:51 AM

Subject: [compliance] RE: Compliance of Companies, consensus, Incentives

> 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.

>

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Subject: Re: [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 stablishing

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.

>

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>To: <Eads.Mark>Subject: Re: Re: Ag. to forest conversionsDate: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:04:56 -0800

Dear Mark and Friends, the querry of Mr. Benford has unvailed somemethodological issues that usually get burried when we assume things away in

the name of generating generalities, depending on what we assume away. If

we assume away practice, then we can base our model of undertanding and

later action on matching theoretical expectations and local perceptions.

From my point of view, the querry of Mr. Benford is based on matching

theoretical expectations(marginal agricultural land with the help of

wildlife or humans will revert to forest land, perhaps bush land first, then

secondary forest, then...) and local perceptions(local experts/imformants).

Your view, on the other hand, appears to be based on matching similar

theoretical expectations and practice(quantitative/qualitative), leaving

aside perceptions. In my opinion, both models would lead to

incomplete/misleading information if the theoretical component assume away

turns out to be binding.

I am of the view that the only way to avoid either of these short-comings is

by matching theory, practice, and perceptions at the same time. However, I

undertand that cost factors usually lead to assuming one of those three

components away. I have used this view in my PhD thesis, and those

interested in this view can visit my page at

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

Greetings and your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

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

From: Mark Eads

To: <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:34 PM

Subject: Re: Ag. to forest conversions

> 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

>

> benfor@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,

> Frank A. Benford

From: Devforum@worldbank.orgDate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:45:41 -0500Message-ID: <LYRIS-21383-11849-2000.12.04-14.26.57--munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

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.

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:59:17 -0500Subject: [compliance] Two week summaryTo: "Environmental Compliance E-Consultation" <compliance@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "Michelle Keene" <mlkeene@attglobal.net>

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-compliance-58320I@lists.worldbank.org>

Reply-To: compliance@lists.worldbank.org

Message-Id: <LYRIS-58320-12160-2000.12.11-00.41.32--munoz#interchange.ubc.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

Status:

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.