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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>

Subject: Re: Message 5 - Documents available via Electronic Mail

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:34:41 -0800

Hello, please send me the following 3 documents.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

> Documents

>

> 1. Task Managers' Report on Land and Agriculture (Chapters 10, 12 and

> 14 of Agenda 21) for CSD 10 - Part 1 (Final Draft) (6 pages)

>

> 2. Task Managers' Report on Land and Agriculture (Chapters 10, 12 and

> 14 of Agenda 21) for CSD 10 - Part 2 (Draft) (11 pages)

>

> 3. The Place of Agriculture in Sustainable Development: the way forward

> on SARD (12 pages)

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>,

<RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Subject: COMMENTS ON TASK MANAGER REPORT: PART II

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 18:59:54 -0800

Dear Friends, I read the task manager report Part II. I think that my

comments sent before are appropriate with respect to the systematic

delinking of Rio goals and the tools/processes/technologies used, and now

intended to be used to address those goals.

From my point of view I can summarize the strategy presented and used in the

following steps, from the bottom up:

a) there are micro/macro aspects that affect any strategy, including the Rio

Strategy;

b) because of this variability different weights and priorities were

allocated to the different elements of the strategy;

c) three elements were selected to make up this strategy, namely Sustainable

development of agriculture and rural areas, combating desertification and

droughts, and integrated planning and management of land resources;

d) these different elements are seen as partly overlapping and partly

complementary;

e) the main priority set were to address food insecurity, poverty, land

degradation and desertification;

d) the tools/technologies/processes used vary from local to non-local

technologies based on a framework of free trade later compounded by

globalization;

f) then 10 years later, it is said in this report that the proirities of Rio

10 are the same as those of Rio just more intensified;

g) then again it is reccomended more money and committement to go into

apparently the same tools/technologies/processes used before with some

improvements, which vary from local to non-local technologies based now on

a framework of intensified globalization.

With all my respect, I find this contradictory. Should not be wise to

start exploring other posible venues to make the

strategies/toos/technologies used and to be used a little more poverty and

enviromentally friendly?. I think we have to find ways to: a) directly link

and fit these tools/technologies/processes to the goals we are aiming at,

namely less poverty, less environmental degradation, and so on; b) this way

when povery and environmental degradation falls the positive externalities

can be easily meassured and assess; and c) for doing this, we need to

realise, I think, that land sustainability and agricultural sustainability

is more than integrating components and subcomponents of a estrategy.

My warm greetings. Your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>,

<RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Subject: COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT/SARD PART I

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:55:56 -0800

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

in Vancouver, Canada

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

If I recall well, the problems at the time of Rio were, in general terms,

increasing poverty

and increasing environmental degradation.

The rio conference formally recognized these two aspects as the main issues

to be addressed. A plan was made to address these two issues as soon as

possible, but with long term objectives.

The content of the draft repor SARD Part I sent to me provides evidence that

the policies originally followed to address poverty and environmental

degradation led to increase poverty and increased environmental degradation.

Then globalization came to worsen the problem more by intenfying the poverty

and environmental degradation problem of concern. Have we failed the goals

of Rio so far?.

As things are right now, globalization forces will become more wild and

poverty and environmental degradation appear to be moving to a critical

stage. Eco-economic partnerships can not be the solution in the long term

as implied here if they leave out social concerns(the majority).

Over all, I see a systematic direct delinking of the goals(poverty and

environmental degradation) that were set out 10 years a go and the

instruments and processes chosen to achieve that.

This report indicates that while poverty increased and environmental

degradation increased, production increased, standard of living in

industrial/urban areas increased, awareness and NGO movements increased,

goverment and international research networks increased, economic

development over all increased, free trade increased, infrainstructure

improvements have increased, vertical integration has increased,

privatization has increased, and decentralization has increased.

It looks like the better we do in all the fronts above, the more poverty and

environmental degradation we are generating. And the report suggest that

the way out of this poverty and environmental cycle is to still improve

still more those areas/tools/technologies that appear to be leading to the

problem we are trying to address.

I would suggest that this issue should be looked a little bit closer.

Otherwise, we may find out during RIO-20 that poverty and environmental

degradation are still worse.

My warm greetings to all. The views shared here with you are my personal

views, I may be wrong. Your comments are welcome.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC., Canada

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

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>,

<RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Subject: COMMENTS ON THE WAY FORWARD FOR SARD: III

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 02:43:37 -0800

Dear Friends, I read the document sent to me called "the place of

agriculture in sustainable development: the way forward on SARD".

I have the following specific and general comments to share:

Specific comments:

a) it is said that now SARD is moving toward sustainability, but when

described it still appears to remain under sustainable development;

b) land sustainability appears to be equated to SARD sustainabilitity;

c) the goals of SARD are mainly the alliviation of rural poverty and

reduction of enviromental degradation while the role of FAO is on

production, distribution, and the delivery of food, the goals of SARD and

the role of FAO appear to complement each other, but since both of them are

on the supply side of agriculture they may lift up poor producers in rural

areas, but not poor consumers in rural areas, specially that it is said that

increased productivity is accompained by less workers in the agricultural

sector;

d) given that as mentioned in this document, developed countries do not have

the problem of rural poverty and hunger and no longer have, as compaired to

developing countries, key ecosystems to mantain, then the SARD efforts and

the FAO efforst appear to be relevant to less developing country's problems

mainly;

e) since these problems are seen as somebody's else problems, perhaps this

explains why ODA funding is speedily declining and since the countries with

more rural poverty and hunger usually are the ones more unstable, those are

the ones who get less or no DFI funding;

f) for countries without the problems of rural poverty and hunger, the SARD

appear to be an added bonus to apparently already established comparative

advantages;

g) and the situation above, appears to work out a cycle in which the

problems of the poor countries become the drivers of increasing poverty and

environmental degradation for them as they try to dig themselves out of an

apparent black hole, the more they strive to get out, the more they appear

to be sinking, as the report indicates that both poverty and degradation

continue to increased after 10 years of development efforts to reverse those

trends.

General comments

a) before Rio, the FAO had the same role, but without the clear SARD goals;

b) after Rio, the FAO by taking the SARD goals to promote it became

"environmentally friendly", but this environmentally friendliness was never

directly linked to the social goals(alliviation of poverty and food

security) that were stated;

c) the different reports I read indicate that the poverty situation is

worse, which means that food insecurity is worse;

d) I am surprise to see that he world bank has no formal role with SARD when

it is the institution responsible to erradicate poverty, including rural

poverty I think;

e) from my point of view, the SARD is dealing with poor producers and poor

consumers, including poor consumers in rural areas;

f) since there is poverty within SARD, then the world bank should channel

funds through SARD to estabilise it and coordinate efforts with FAO

formally;

g) this way we are dealing with both the supply side and the demand side of

SARD at the same time putting local consumers in better footing as compared

to non-local consumers.

Things to consider:

a) not only the limited effective demand of the weak(the poor farmer, the

poor country, ...) is a problem affecting access to technology, but also the

fact that the rich(corporations, rich countries, ...) always have the first

crack to newly developed technology is a problem;

b) better technologies/more agricultural productivity should be expected to

increase deforested area pressures on remainning forested areas(conversion

pressures); should be expected to increase the rich pressures on the poor;

and should be expected to increase developed country pressures on less

develop countries simply because under unequal footing the distribution of

technology/agricultural productivity is based on how big your foot is: free

technology is only useful to those who have land where to apply it, which is

not the majority, and paid technology is only useful to those who can afford

it, which is the minority;

c) better technology/more agricultural productivity under intensified

globalization should be expected to increase the pressures of the strong on

the weak, and one way is steeper verticalization;

d) this is the scenario from my point of view that the SARD program and FAO

is facing right now.

Again, these are my personal comments and my appologies for its length. It

will be interesting to see the views of others on the same issues.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

To: <dglocal@egroups.com.mx>

Subject: Comentario

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:39:16 -0800

Estimados Amigos/amigas, lei este mensaje con bastante interest. La aldea

global no se ha materializado debido a que para ser sostenible debe de ser

basada en cooperation global, justicial social and ambiental global, y fuera

de fuerzas maximadoras de objectivos relevantes solo para grupos especificos

a nivel global. La aldea global en mi opinion quedo sin techo cuando el

pensamiento pensar global y actuar local fue basado en competicion, sin

considerar justicial social y ambiental, y bajo la dinamica maximadora.

Estas fuerzas hacen generalmente las aspiraciones globales inconsistente con

las aspiraciones locales. Si revertimos el proceso, entonces las

aspiraciones locales aparecen en conflicto con las aspiraciones globales.

No estoy muy familiarisado con lo que GLOCALIZACION significa exactamente ya

que el temino CONTRACCION es usado en un modo general(eg. pueden haber

contraccione optimas y no optimas) , pero si se que se puede demostrar en

teoria y parece hoy bien aceptado en la practica que sostenibilidad es un

processo basado en optimization y por lo tanto cualquier paradigma que no es

basado o no es consistente con optimizacion puede ser sostenido, pero no

sostenible. Como procesos optmizadores entre otras cosas son basados en

cooperacion effectiva, procesos no violentos son la norma de cambio.

Encontre este

mensaje bien interesante, y pense que seria apropiado compartir algunas

ideas propias. Mis disculpas si estoy equivocado.

.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

From: <dglocal@egroups.com.mx>

To: <dglocal@egroups.com.mx>

Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 6:51 AM

Subject: [dglocal] Resumen número 118

:

1. Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

De: "Emiliano Palacios M." <epalaciosm@terra.com.pe>

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Mensaje: 1

Fecha: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:41:07 -0500

De: "Emiliano Palacios M." <epalaciosm@>

Asunto: Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

JOSÉ VIDAL-BENEYTO

Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

Ese portentoso vendedor de ideología USA que fue Marshall McLuhan nos

convenció, hace 30 años, del inevitable cumplimiento de su profecía sobre la

aldea global: un maravilloso espacio único en el que el american way of life

y las virtudes de la tecnocomunicación iban a abolir la multiplicidad de

lugares y a hacernos convivir, a todos los humanos, en la armonía de una

sola y misma realidad compartida. Su mensaje era: todos igualmente

desarrollados, felices, comunicantes, norteamericanizados.

No se trata de la incoherente banalidad al uso de 'pensar globalmente y de

actuar localmente', sino del compacto entramado entre lo local y lo global,

de la calidad de su entretejimiento que los hace indisociables en su hacer y

en sus resultados. Su alcance e importancia les vienen de la intensidad de

su interrelación.

De aquí que lo globalmente relevante tenga que ser también localmente

decisivo. A esta realidad tan de ahora, que es simultáneamente proceso y

resultado, la llamamos glocalidad -contracción de global y local-, y a sus

protagonistas, actores glocales.

Y ésta es quizá su característica fundamental: recusar la

violencia -componente esencial de la sociedad que quieren cambiar

radicalmente- por medios no violentos.

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

To: "Walter Varillas" <wvarillas@>

Subject: Fw: Comentario

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:01:16 -0800

Estimado Walter. Estoy recibiendo mensajes y no puedo contestar por ninguna

de las dos direcciones por donde recibo los mensajes de DGLOCAL.

Me podria por favor compartir este mensaje con el grupo y arreglar la

situacion de mi direccion en la lista para no tener problemas en responder

en el futuro.

Muchas gracias y mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

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

To: <dglocal@egroups.com.mx>

Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 1:39 PM

Subject: Comentario

> Estimados Amigos/amigas, lei este mensaje con bastante interest. La aldea

> global no se ha materializado debido a que para ser sostenible debe de ser

> basada en cooperation global, justicial social and ambiental global, y

fuera> de fuerzas maximadoras de objectivos relevantes solo para grupos

especificos> a nivel global. La aldea global en mi opinion quedo sin techo

cuando el> pensamiento pensar global y actuar local fue basado en competicion,

sin> considerar justicial social y ambiental, y bajo la dinamica maximadora.

> Estas fuerzas hacen generalmente las aspiraciones globales inconsistente

con> las aspiraciones locales. Si revertimos el proceso, entonces las

> aspiraciones locales aparecen en conflicto con las aspiraciones globales.

> No estoy muy familiarisado con lo que GLOCALIZACION significa exactamente

ya> que el temino CONTRACCION es usado en un modo general(eg. pueden haber

> contraccione optimas y no optimas) , pero si se que se puede demostrar en

> teoria y parece hoy bien aceptado en la practica que sostenibilidad es un

> processo basado en optimization y por lo tanto cualquier paradigma que no

es> basado o no es consistente con optimizacion puede ser sostenido, pero no

> sostenible. Como procesos optmizadores entre otras cosas son basados en

> cooperacion effectiva, procesos no violentos son la norma de cambio.

> Encontre este> mensaje bien interesante, y pense que seria apropiado compartir algunas

> ideas propias. Mis disculpas si estoy equivocado.

> .

> Mis mas cordiales saludos;

> Lucio Munoz

> Vancouver, Canada

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

>

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

> From: <dglocal@egroups.com.mx>

> To: <dglocal@egroups.com.mx>

> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 6:51 AM

> Subject: [dglocal] Resumen número 118

> :

>

> 1. Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

> De: "Emiliano Palacios M." <epalaciosm@>

>

>

> ________________________________________________________________________

> ________________________________________________________________________

>

> Mensaje: 1

> Fecha: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:41:07 -0500

> De: "Emiliano Palacios M." <epalaciosm@

> Asunto: Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

>

>

> JOSÉ VIDAL-BENEYTO

>

> Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

>

> Ese portentoso vendedor de ideología USA que fue Marshall McLuhan nos

> convenció, hace 30 años, del inevitable cumplimiento de su profecía sobre

la

> aldea global: un maravilloso espacio único en el que el american way of

life

> y las virtudes de la tecnocomunicación iban a abolir la multiplicidad de

> lugares y a hacernos convivir, a todos los humanos, en la armonía de una

> sola y misma realidad compartida. Su mensaje era: todos igualmente

> desarrollados, felices, comunicantes, norteamericanizados.

….

…

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>,

<RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Subject: Sustainability begins at home, a little extension

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:23:38 -0800

Dear Friends, in general terms reading these two messages made me think, if

I am not mistaken, that one refers to sustainability and the other indicates

that sustainability start at home.

Just as enviromental degradation can come from the action of social and

economic forces, it can also come from the actions of both developing and

develped countries, and from their own perspective, sustainability must

start at home. However, this has sacrifices for both of them

social/economic forces or developing / developed countries; and as we need

to find ways to move away from the notion that "the more is better", the

issue becomes "how much can we sacrify our home for the benefit of all?. I

wrote a draft article dealing with these issues called "Substituting the

More is Better Paradigm for the Less is Better Paradigm: Identifying Key

Transitional Problems", which I could share unedited as it is with people on

this conference to share ideas if appropriate. If appropriate, I could send

the unedited copy as an attachment to the list. It is not yet in my website.

This could either refine or discard these ideas through a positive process

As both views, deveping country/developed country, appear to be represented

in this seminar and could provide their own feedback. After all we are here

to share ideas, not to impose ideas.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

From: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>

To: <RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:29 AM

Subject: Message 27 - Comment of Ryan Curtis on Intervention by Brian Lewi

s, Reply to Questions 3 and 4 (Message 23)

>

> Mr. Lewis wrote: "The challenge, to my mind, is rather simple. We must

> establish a way in which we include people, all people, their ideas, their

> beliefs, their experience and history. This "inclusion" requires, indeed

it> demands, that we honestly and whole-heartedly seek to enrich and develop

all> peoples and societies capacities to care and to recognize the need to work

> on the problems and issues for which we collectively must find solutions."

>> The problem that I foresee is one of economics and the distribution of

both> resources and wealth (in financial terms). Currently the vast majority of

> the earth's resources are controlled and consumed by the minority ... in

> order for the 'developing' (a misnomer if ever there was one) countries to

> have an increase in their standard of living (not to be confused with

> quality of life - the two are quite seperate) then the resources *must* be

> returned to their control. In my opinion this will never happen.

Citizens> of affluent countries will never willingly give up their 'luxuries' in

order> that citizens of other countries can satisfy their basic needs for

survival.> The governments of affluent countries will never willingly carry out any

> actions which will realistically infringe upon the standard of living of

the> voting population of their respective countries. The countries of asia,

and> africa and latin america (for instance), in order to develop economically,

> will have to take control of its own natural resources - oil, gas,

precious> metals, minerals and water - and in my honest opinion, the existing vested

> interests will not permit that to occur - and will use military

> interventions where necessary to ensure that it does not.

>

> My own organisation, GAIA-The Foundation for Sustainable Development,

> www-foundation-gaia.org confines the vast majority of its operations and

> activities to SD in the industrially developed countries. Until we can

> implement sustainable development in Europe, and North America - which is

> where the vast majority of damage is being done - then our efforts to

> improve the livelihoods of those in poorer countries will be limited to

> tinkering and political window dressing. We have to show the citizens of

> the west that sustainability begins at home.

>

> In terms of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in our own

> backyards we must begin to seriously implement programmes that promote

> organic farming, Permaculture, agro-forestry .... free-range non-intensive

> animal husbandry, renewable energy, appropriate technology. All of the

> research has already been done, over the last 30 years pretty much all of

> the solutions have been devised and tested - what is holding back

> implementation of sustainable agriculture is the lack of political will,

and> the surplus of consumer ignorance and apathy. If we are not willing to pay

> sensible prices for good quality food, a price that allows a decent

standard> of living, and a decent quality of life, for those whose occupation is

food> production - then we will end up with unsustainable agriculture by

default.

>

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>

Subject: Problem with the RECORD OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:45:33 -0800

Dear Moderators, checking the site for the RIO-10 website you sent I found

that there is a problem in the record of contributions. After intervention

28, all other messages regardless of their number show message 29 and not

the message of the person listed. Please, check it out to avoid confusion

by non-paricipants.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

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

From: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>

To: <RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:18 AM

Subject: "Record of contributions" available on line.

> Dear E-Conferees,

>

> The "Record of contributions" is now available through the web site.

Please

> enter the E-Conference page:

> http://www.fao.org/prods/sard/rio10/econf-en.htm

> <http://www.fao.org/prods/sard/rio10/econf-en.htm> and then click on the

> tab at the top of the page.

>

> With our regards,

> The E-Team

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

To: "Price, Thomas \(AGD\)" <Thomas.Price>

Cc: "'NEELY, Constance L.'" <cneely@u>,

"'FORSTER \(E-Moderator\), Tom'" <sardngo@>,

"'PHARES \(Rio\), Robert'" <rphares@>

Subject: Re: Problem with the RECORD OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:36:23 -0800

Dear Friends, I checked again. And now it is fine: there were two problems

before when I checked, there was no message 29 and this message 29 appeared

in all message beginning with message 28, I do not understand why. My

system appears fine. I will let you know if the problems comes back again.

Right now it is fine.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

From: "Price, Thomas (AGD)" <Thomas.Price@>

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

Cc: "'NEELY, Constance L.'" <cneely@>; "'FORSTER

(E-Moderator), Tom'" <sardngo@>; "'PHARES (Rio), Robert'"

<rphares@>

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:54 AM

Subject: RE: Problem with the RECORD OF CONTRIBUTIONS

> Dear Mr. Munoz,

> We have just checked the "Record of contributions" through Explorer, which

> correctly shows Messages 29 and beyond. Please advise if you are still

• encountering problems and, if so, the browser used. Thank you.
• > Our regards, The E-Team

>

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

To: "Taylor Family"

Subject: Re: I was wondering if you could help me.

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:57:46 -0800

Dear Taylor, thank you for contacting me. Part of my research and

thesis deals with deforestation in central america, and I just finished

a survey of deforestation perceptions in the region as an effort to

update simmilar information gathered in 1996. Data and methological

issues relevant to it are in my website at:

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

x.html

I do not have information about Brazil or South America or the Amazon

Region so I can not help you with that.

Visit my site, and check the data on deforestation, perceptions, and

theories of deforestation relevant to Central America, and if you find

something interesting that you would like to use, please feel free to

download it and use it.

You can contact me any time if you wish to focus your project in central

america after cheking my site, I will help you in what ever I can. Keep

the motivation going.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Taylor Family=20

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca=20

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 3:32 PM

Subject: I was wondering if you could help me.

Mr. Munoz

Hi, I am a student in grade 11 in canada and i have a project in

socail studies which requires me to pick and global issue and how it

affects and how it affects a nation. I have chosen Deforestation and

South America and how it affects mostly brazil adn the Amazon. I was

hoping if you possibly ahd any information i would beable to use for my

project.

Thank you for your time!

Alison Taylor

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

To: "THEOMAI" <listatheomai@unq.edu.ar>

Subject: FAO CONFERENCE RIO-10

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:05:50 -0800

Estimados Amigos/amigas, algunas ideas presentadas en esta discusion,

especialmente mis, pueden ser de interest para algunos miembros de el grupo.

Abajo esta la informacion necesaria para revisar las contribuciones or para

participar.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>

To: <RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 7:18 AM

Subject: "Record of contributions" available on line.

> Dear E-Conferees,

>

> The "Record of contributions" is now available through the web site.

Please

> enter the E-Conference page:

> http://www.fao.org/prods/sard/rio10/econf-en.htm

> <http://www.fao.org/prods/sard/rio10/econf-en.htm> and then click on the

> tab at the top of the page.

>

> With our regards,

• The E-Team

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>,

<RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Subject: My views of Mr. Altieri's comments

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:32:28 -0800

Dear Friends, while I agree with the general view of where the roots of

development should be(locally based) and the need to nurture it and expand

it to serve better the poor, specially the poorest, and finally have a

positive impact on their social, economic, and environmental welbeing, I

have the following comments:

a) the issue is not how to get from here to there, but how to go back to

where we should have been in the first place, locally based development

enhenced by appropriate, cost-efficient, and unbiased external factors;

b) true development from inside out(local supported by non-local) can not

take place unless we address a series of biases, which I believe most of you

will agree are in place, directly or indirectly: technological bias,

methodological bias, resource endowment bias, gender bias, race bias,

homogeneity bias, national bias, urbanization bias, professional bias, and

export bias. From my points of view, these are some of the most important

sources of unsustainability;

c) from my point of view, food security has two components,

production(supply) and consumption(demand), and therefore, agriculture as a

funtion of food security is affected by them;

d) access to technology is the factor that links production and development,

and the production side environmental impacts(THIS IS THE FAO, CGIAR

DOMAIN);

e) access to income is the factor that links consumption and development,

and the consumption side environmental impacts(THIS IS THE WORLD BANK

DOMAIN);

f) however, the heart of the food security and development dillema is

EQUALITY as equality affects the distribution of production, access to

technology and therefore the supply side of development; and equality

affects the distribution of consumption, access to income, and therefore the

demand side of development;

g) as these factors were not put at the heart of RIO and its estrategies, we

should not be surprised if food security of more insecure today due to more

poverty and more environmental degradation;

h) and, as commented before, if these factors are not addressed in these

rounds of RIO-10 and incomporated in the locally based processes that Mr.

Altieri describe, we should not be surprised if when RIO-20 comes along we

are facing a worse situation.

As this is my last contribution to this forum, my thanks for sharing ideas.

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>

To: <RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:39 AM

Subject: Message 39 - Contribution by Miguel Altieri

>

> Dear Colleagues:

>

> Let me elaborate a bit on how we get from here to there when dealing with

> issues of food security and natural resources management for the millions

of> resource-poor farmers yet untouched by modern science.

Perhaps the most> significant realization at the end of the 20th century is

the fact that> areas characterized by traditional and peasant agriculture

remain poorly> served by the conventional transfer-of-technology approach,

due to its bias> in favor if modern scientific knowledge and its neglect of local

> participation and traditional knowledge. The historical challenge of the

> international agricultural community is therefore to refocus its efforts

on> marginalized farmers and their agroecosystems and assume responsibility

for> the welfare of their agriculture.

>

> The urgent need to combat rural poverty and to conserve and regenerate the

> deteriorated resource base of small farms requires an active search for

new> kinds of agricultural research and resource management strategies. NGOs

> have long argued that a sustainable agricultural development strategy that

> is environmentally enhancing must be based on agroecological principles

and> on a more participatory approach for technology development and

> dissemination. Focused attention to the linkages between agriculture and

> natural resource management will help greatly in solving the problems of

> poverty, food insecurity, and environmental degradation.

>

> To be of benefit to the rural poor, agricultural research and development

> should operate on the basis of a "bottom-up" approach, using and building

> upon the resources already available: local people, their knowledge and

> their autochthonous natural resources. It must also seriously take into

> consideration, through participatory approaches, the needs, aspirations

and> circumstances of smallholders. This means that from the standpoint of

poor> farmers, innovations must be:

>

> § Input saving and cost reducing

> § Risk reducing

> § Expanding toward marginal-fragile lands

> § Congruent with peasant farming systems

> § Nutrition, health and environment improving

> Although statistics on the number and location of resource-poor farmers

vary> considerably, it is estimated that about 1.9 to 2.2 billion people remain

> directly or indirectly untouched by modern agricultural technology. In

> Latin America, the rural population is projected to remain stable at 125

> million until the year 2000, but over 61% of this population is poor and

is> expected to increase. The projections for Africa are even more dramatic.

> The majority of the rural poor (about 370 million of the poorest) live in

> areas that are resource-poor, highly heterogeneous and risk prone. Their

> agricultural systems are small scale, complex and diverse. The worst

> poverty is often located in arid or semi-arid zones, and in mountains and

> hills that are ecologically vulnerable (Conway, 1997). These areas are

> remote from services and roads and agricultural productivity is often low

on> a crop by crop bases, although total farm output can be significant. Such

> resource-poor farmers and their complex systems pose special research

> challenges and demand appropriate technologies that are:

>

> § Based on indigenous knowledge or rationale

> § Economically viable, accessible and based on local resources

> § Environmentally sound, socially and culturally sensitive

> § Risk averse, adapted to farmer circumstances

> § Enhance total farm productivity and stability

>

> Many agroecologists have argued that the starting point in the development

> of new pro-poor agricultural development approaches is the very systems

that> traditional farmers have developed and/or inherited. Such complex farming

> systems, adapted to the local conditions, have helped small farmers to

> sustainably manage harsh environments and to meet their subsistence needs,

> without depending on mechanization, chemical fertilizers, pesticides or

> other technologies of modern agricultural science. The persistence of

> millions of hectares under traditional agriculture in the from of raised

> fields, terraces, polycultures, agroforestry systems, etc., document a

> successful indigenous agricultural strategy and comprises a tribute to the

> "creativity" of small farms throughout the developing world. These

> microcosms of traditional agriculture offer promising models for other

areas> as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain

> year-round yields.

>

> For years several NGOs in the developing world have been promoting

> agroecologically-based NRM approaches. Such organizations argue that a

> sustainable agricultural development strategy that is environmentally

> enhancing must be based on agroecological principles and on a more

> participatory approach for technology development and dissemination.

> Agroecology provides a methodological framework for understanding the

nature> of farming systems and the principles by which they function. It is the

> science that provides ecological principles for the design and management

of> sustainable and resource - conserving agricultural systems - offering

> several advantages for the development of farmer-friendly technologies.

> Agroecology relies on indigenous farming knowledge and selected modern

> technologies to manage diversity, incorporate biological principles and

> resources into farming systems, and intensify production. Thus it

provides> for an environmentally sound and affordable way for smallholders to

> intensify production in marginal areas.

>

> Since the early 1980s, hundreds of agroecologically-based projects were

> promoted by NGOs throughout the developing world which incorporate

elements> of both traditional knowledge and modern agricultural science, featuring

> resource-conserving yet highly productive systems, such as polycultures,

> agroforestry, and the integration of crops and livestock, etc. Such

> alternative approaches can be described as low-input technologies and

> practices, but this designation refers to the external inputs required.

The> amount of labor, skills, and management that are required as inputs to

make> land and other factors of production most productive is quite substantial.

> So rather than focus on what is not being utilized, it is better to focus

on> what is most important to increase food output- labor, knowledge and

> management.

>

> Agroecological alternative approaches are based on using locally available

> resources as much as possible, though they do not reject the use of

external> inputs. Farmers cannot benefit from technologies that are not available,

> affordable, or appropriate to their conditions. Purchased inputs present

> special problems and risks for less-secure farmers, particularly where

> supplies and the credit to facilitate purchases are inadequate.

>

> The analysis of dozens of NGO-led agroecological projects show

convincingly> that agroecological systems are not limited to producing low outputs, as

> some critics have asserted. Increases in production of 50 to 100 percent

> are fairly common with most alternative production methods. In some of

> these systems, yields for crops that the poor rely on most- rice, beans,

> maize, cassava, potatoes, barley - have been increased by several-fold,

> relying on labor and know-how more than on expensive purchased inputs, and

> capitalizing on processes of intensification and synergy.

>

> More important than just yields, it is possible to raise total production

> significantly through diversification of farming systems, such as raising

> fish in rice paddies or growing crops with trees, or adding goats or

poultry> to household operations in many countries. Agroecological approaches

> increased the stability of production as seen in lower co-efficients of

> variance in crop yield with better soil and water management.

>

> It is difficult, however, to quantify all the potentials of such

diversified> and intensified systems because there is too little research and

experience> to establish their limits. Nevertheless, data from agroecological field

> projects show that traditional crop and animal combinations can often be

> adapted to increase productivity when the biological structuring of the

farm> is improved and labor and local resources are efficiently used. In fact,

> most agroecological technologies promoted by NGOs can improve traditional

> agricultural yield increasing cereal output per area of marginal land from

> some 400-600kg/ha to 2000-2500 kg/ha. Enhancing also the general

> agrobiodiversity and its associated positive effects on food security and

> environmental integrity. Some projects emphasizing green manures and

other> organic management techniques can increase maize yields from 1-1.5 t/ha

(a> typical highland peasant yield) to 3-4 t/ha. Polycultures produce more

> combined yield in a given area than could be obtained from monocultures of

> the component species. Most traditional or NGO promoted polycultures

> exhibit LER values greater than 1.5. Moreover, yield variability of

> cereal/legume polycultures are much lower than for monocultures of the

> components.

>

> In general, data shows that over time agroecological systems exhibit more

> stable levels of total production per unit area than high-input systems;

> produce economically favorable rates of return; provide a return to labor

> and other inputs sufficient for a livelihood acceptable to small farmers

and> their families; and ensure soil protection and conservation as well as

> enhance biodiversity. Recent data gathered by Jules Pretty and his group

at> Essex demonstrates that more than 9 million households have used

> agroecological approaches regenerating about 29 million hectares

throughout> the developing world. This has been done with one tenth of what

goes to the> CGIAR yearly (CG's budget is about 330 million).

>

> Isn't time that donors bet on this new approach, which is more

> cost-effective, more directly touching the poor and with very little

> transactions costs?

>

> Miguel A. Altieri

>

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>,

<RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Subject: This message is not in the list of contributions, it did not get there

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:34:42 -0800 

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

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

To: "RIO10-Moderator" <RIO10-Moderator@fao.org>; <RIO10-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:32 AM

Subject: My views of Mr. Altieri's comments

> Dear Friends, while I agree with the general view of where the roots of

> development should be(locally based) and the need to nurture it and expand

> it to serve better the poor, specially the poorest, and finally have a

> positive impact on their social, economic, and environmental welbeing, I

> have the following comments:

>

> a) the issue is not how to get from here to there, but how to go back to

> where we should have been in the first place, locally based development

> enhenced by appropriate, cost-efficient, and unbiased external factors;

> b) true development from inside out(local supported by non-local) can not

> take place unless we address a series of biases, which I believe most of

you> will agree are in place, directly or indirectly: technological bias,

> methodological bias, resource endowment bias, gender bias, race bias,

> homogeneity bias, national bias, urbanization bias, professional bias, and

> export bias. From my points of view, these are some of the most important

> sources of unsustainability;

> c) from my point of view, food security has two components,

> production(supply) and consumption(demand), and therefore, agriculture as

a> funtion of food security is affected by them;

> d) access to technology is the factor that links production and

development,> and the production side environmental impacts(THIS IS THE FAO,

CGIAR> DOMAIN);

>

> e) access to income is the factor that links consumption and development,

> and the consumption side environmental impacts(THIS IS THE WORLD BANK

> DOMAIN);

> f) however, the heart of the food security and development dillema is

> EQUALITY as equality affects the distribution of production, access to

> technology and therefore the supply side of development; and equality

> affects the distribution of consumption, access to income, and therefore

the> demand side of development;

> g) as these factors were not put at the heart of RIO and its estrategies,

we> should not be surprised if food security of more insecure today due to

more> poverty and more environmental degradation;

> h) and, as commented before, if these factors are not addressed in these

> rounds of RIO-10 and incomporated in the locally based processes that Mr.

> Altieri describe, we should not be surprised if when RIO-20 comes along we

> are facing a worse situation.

> As this is my last contribution to this forum, my thanks for sharing

ideas.

>

> My warm greetings to all;

> Sincerely yours;

> Lucio Munoz

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

>

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

To: "Gabriela Cevallos" <gabbyacp@>

Subject: Re: URGENTE POR FAVOR; SALUDOS MUY CORDIALES

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:45:15 -0800

Estimada Gabriela, en 1997 cuando trate de centrar importancia a este tema

no hubo mucho interes. Varias personas me han contactado en forma similar y

voy a ver si luego hago tiempo para escribier algo actualizado sobre esto.

Para que tenga mas informacion sobre dynamica de grupos, psycologia, y

accion/reaccion, visite mi pagina

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz en la seccion MYVIEWS y mire mis ideas

en 1997 algunas en espanol y otras en ingles relacionadas con el tema

specialmente los mensajes de septiembre y octubre 1997, creo.

Saludos;

Lucio

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

From: "Gabriela Cevallos" <gabbyacp@>

To: <munoz@unixg.ubc.ca>

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:57 AM

Subject: URGENTE POR FAVOR; SALUDOS MUY CORDIALES

> Señor Muñoz, le saludo muy atentamente desde Ecuador, soy estudiante de

> Psicología y necesito saber opiniones sobre la importancia que tiene la

> dinámica de grupos como parte de la psicología y una crítica de la misma.

>

> Su opinión para mi es muy importante.

>

> Gracias de antemano por colaborarme con susconocimientos.

>

> Espero su respuesta lo más pronto que le sea posible.

> Atentamente

>

> Gabriela Cevallos

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

To: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>,

"ELAN" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: Re: EUA ABANDONA EL PROTOCOLO DE KYOTO

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:36:50 -0800

Dear Julio, and Friends. The decision of the USA to abandom the Kyoto

process should not be a surprise under the current administration. Just

recently I made some comments in a GLOBALIZATION DISCUSSION I was

invited to participate where I described some of the characteristics of

the NEW USA MODEL after the previous administration which provide in my

opinion one rational of what to expect based on those characteristics

from the sustainability point of view. Also the potential clash between

morally based liberal polices(such as in the UE) and practically based

liberal policies(now in the USA) was advanced, which may lead to a

different path toward sustainability. Those interested can look for

those comments at

http://www.politalk.com/pages/discuss/globalization.html

My warm greetings to all. Your comments on my views are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

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

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN=20

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:43 AM

Subject: EUA ABANDONA EL PROTOCOLO DE KYOTO

EE.UU. ABANDONA EL TRATADO DE KYOTO CONTRA EL CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL

28 de marzo, 2001

Actualizado: 5:56 PM hora de Nueva York (2256 GMT)

WASHINGTON -- Estados Unidos abandon=F3 el Tratado de Kyoto de 1997,

dirigido a combatir el calentamiento global, porque el presidente George

Bush lo considera contrario a los intereses del pa=EDs, dijo el

mi=E9rcoles un portavoz de la Casa Blanca.

La decisi=F3n es un golpe a las esperanzas europeas de que Washington

continuar=EDa presionando sobre un tema que la Uni=F3n Europea considera

esencial para las relaciones con Estados Unidos.

"El presidente ha sido claro. El no apoya el Tratado de Kyoto", dijo

el portavoz de la Casa Blanca, Ari Fleischer.

El tratado, firmado por el ex presidente Bill Clinton en 1998 pero que

nunca fue presentado al Senado para su ratificaci=F3n, est=E1 dirigido a

limitar las emisiones industriales de gases de efecto invernadero, que

se cree causan el calentamiento global.

Bush se opone al protocolo de Kyoto porque no obliga a las naciones en

desarrollo a limitar sus emisiones de gases y porque cree que los costos

superan los beneficios.

A principios de mes, Bush rompi=F3 una promesa de su campa=F1a al

anunciar que no pedir=E1 a las plantas de energ=EDa del pa=EDs que

reduzcan las emisiones de di=F3xido de carbono, un gas que la mayor=EDa de los

cient=EDficos considera un factor clave en el aumento de las

temperaturas del planeta.=20

La decisi=F3n se produjo tras un intenso cabildeo de las compa=F1=EDas

de petr=F3leo y carb=F3n, as=ED como de legisladores conservadores

opuestos a la medida.

Las declaraciones de la Casa Blanca se produjeron un d=EDa antes de

que Bush se re=FAna en Washington con el canciller alem=E1n, Gerhard

Schroeder, quien la semana pasada le pidi=F3 a Bush en una carta que

cumpliera con el acuerdoS

Ante la pregunta de si Estados Unidos se retirar=EDa del tratado,

Fleischer dijo que nunca entr=F3 en funcionamiento, queriendo decir que

No hay de qu=E9 retirarse.

Fleischer agreg=F3 que s=F3lo una de las 55 naciones cuya aprobaci=F3n

se requiere para implementar el tratado, Rumania, ha tomado medidas en

ese sentido. "Es una se=F1al de que otros est=E1n de acuerdo con la

posici=F3n del presidente sobre el tratado", afirm=F3.

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

To: "Stockholm Challenge" <info@challenge.stockholm.se>

Subject: Re: Welcome to the Stockholm Challenge Award!

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:13:32 -0800

Dear Monica, thank you very much for your message. I am glad to see my

project is in. I will let you know this week information about the relevant

media here and I will spread the word about the Challenge Award Competion.

I will be looking forward to reading and knowing what others are doing in my

area of competition and the others and see how my site and thoughts may

relate to them.

Please receive my warm greetings.

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

From: "Stockholm Challenge" <info@challenge.stockholm.se>

To: <director@2020.org.nz>; <sshao@>;

<ulf.yngwe@>; <akstudio@>………<lslifer@>; <sbogdan@>; <ey@>

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:58 AM

Subject: Welcome to the Stockholm Challenge Award!

Your project submission has been accepted as a competing IT project in the

Stockholm Challenge Award 2001.

We will soon be able to present your information among the other projects.

Please visit our web site at www.challenge.stockholm.se !

An international jury, consisting of senior experts from all corners of the

globe will evaluate your project. The finalists will be announced on 1st of

June 2001 and the winners during the prize-giving ceremony the last week of

September.

The Stockholm Challenge Award is more than an awards program. It offers you

the chance to take part in a global sharing of knowledge and brokering of

contacts. That is why we publish detailed information of each participating

project, on the Challenge web site. Competing projects will be added to the

web site as they enter the Challenge. Therefore, make sure to visit the web

site frequently!

This is what you will find on the web site www.challenge.stockholm.se :

· Projects competing in your own category - read about their projects,

contact them for benchmarking and co-operation, search for similarities and

disparities

· Projects competing from your own home town - exchange contacts and

experiences, finds ways of working together, plan your trip to the finals

ceremony together

· Projects competing in other categories - learn about how others have

solved problems of financing, support and marketing, find information that

you need for solving your own problems

· Statistics derived from the projects competing in the Stockholm Challenge

Award

· You will soon be able to read more about the prize-giving ceremony and the

Best Practices Exhibition and Conference.

We will also publish more information on the Stockholm Challenge Award 2001

in our monthly newsletter. We have taken the liberty of adding you as a

subscriber to the newsletter. If you want to unsubscribe, please visit our

web site and mark unsubscribe in the appropriate box.

Shortly, you will receive a package with a poster and brochures. We hope you

will help us spread the message about the Stockholm Challenge Award to other

projects, media and organisations in your network. Attached to this e-mail

you will find a web participant pin and we hope you put it at your web site

showing your participation in the Stockholm Challenge 2001.

We also urge you to mail us name, e-mail addresses and contact persons to

your local newspapers, radio- and television stations and trade magazines

that could be of interest for your project to appear in. We will send a

press release about your project participating in the Stockholm Challenge

Award to the media of your choice. If you prefer to send them a press

release themselves, let us know.

Once again, welcome to the Stockholm Challenge Award!

Best regards,

Monica Bernestrom

Project Manager

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

New Era - New Thinking - New Challenge

Join in on www.challenge.stockholm.se

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

e-mail: info@challenge.stockholm.se

tel: +46 8 508 28000, fax: +46 8 651 7633

Stockholm Challenge

Stockholm Economic Development Agency

105 35 Stockholm

SWEDEN

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

To: "John Newcomb" <>,

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

Subject: From Religion Vrs Science to Politics and science to Politics Vrs Science

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 00:13:46 -0800

Dear John and Friends. The decision of the USA to walk away from the Kyoto

process will have, in my opinion, a positive effect on socio-environmental

partnerships in the long-term. However, in the short and medium

term this will put politics against science. Science works on validated

evidence, politics works on unvalidated votes. So far, science prevailed

over relegion, at least in university campuses, and so far politics and

science have found ways to develop mutually beneficial strategies after

that. Politics Vrs Science is a new domain as politics rarely goes openly

against science, it appears, at least in developed countries. Several

questions gained importance as a result of this situation, and here is one

of them: Can this mean the beginning of the end of

eco-economic(eco-capitalist) partnerships as viables models toward clean

capitalism?.

Comments are welcome.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

From: "John Newcomb" <>

To: <ELAN@csf.colorado.edu>

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 4:09 PM

Subject: Contrarian view: "Mr. Bush pops the Kyoto gas bubble"

> Mr. Bush pops the Kyoto gas bubble

>

> National Post (Toronto)

> March 31, 2001

>

> Predictably, George W. Bush's public rejection of the 1997 Kyoto

> Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change elicited

> great sighs of disappointment from fellow G7 leaders this week. But

> inwardly, many were presumably glad. Though it is considered bad

> manners to admit as much, the greenhouse gas limitations prescribed in

> the Kyoto agreement are impossible for signatory nations to reach

> without politically impossible economic sacrifices. Mr. Bush did the

> industrialized world a favour by breaking a stale taboo.

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

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: What do members of ELAN think?

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:30:10 -0700

Dear friends at ELAN, I am sure we all have some academic take on the issues

and implications around the troubled "KYOTO ENVIRONMENT", why do not we

share them.

For example, what do you think about the following questions/scenarios:

-Should we expect the kyoto enviroment to die under economic isolation or evolve

into a socio-environmental movement?

-Is the economy more profitable under a social partnership?.

-Are we going back to modelling assuming zero externalities and deep

movements to approximate better a political decision?

-Can this lead to an increase tyde of social aspirations/ participation?

Greetings;

Lucio

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

To: "Tim Erickson" <>

Subject: It looks that my views on moral/practical globalization clash to sustainability appear on track

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:26:25 -0700

Dear Tim, following the events with the Kyoto process and the new USA

position appears to be leaning toward my view that this

confrontation/direction was coming, do not you think so?. This situation

reminded me some to the comments made in your globalization conference.

My warm greetings;

Lucio

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

To: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>,

"ELAN" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: Is not Mr. Pronk's approach the total opposite of the Bruntland commission's approach?

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:01:34 -0700

The Brundland Commission's approach to sustainable development was

based, in my opinion, solely on science(a la western). SCIENCE WAS

GOING TO DETERMINE THE POLICY. The USA position has apparently shift the

approach 180 degrees, and now the approach to sustainable development

will be, apparently for sure, solely based on politics(a la western).

POLITICS IS GOING TO DETERMINE THE SCIENCE. Are we about to see the

extintions of the so call GOOD SCIENCE?. Or are we about to get immerse

in another of the required paradigm shifts toward sustainability?

To me the expression, "To increases the chances of success, climate

conferences should begin with policy negotiations and proceed to

technical discussions, Pronk said" appears to indicate that politics

should be now before technical matters.

In other words, it appears to indicate that if we do not agree on a

specific policy(eg. land use, landuse change, forestry...), no science

is needed. Once we know the policy, let's bring the science in to

justify it/improve it. What do others think about these issues?

Greetings;

Lucio=20

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

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

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=

To: ELAN=

Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 11:16 AM

Subject: NEW CLIMATE PROPOSALS AIM TO APPEASE USA

New Climate Proposals Aim to Appease USA=20

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, April 12, 2001 (ENS) - The chairman of the

United Nations climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan

Pronk, has offered a new set of compromise proposals on rules for the

Kyoto Protocol that are aimed at persuading the United States to rejoin

the process.

.....

..........

To increases the chances of success, climate conferences should begin

with policy negotiations and proceed to technical discussions, Pronk

said.

....

....

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

To: "Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

Subject: My apologies

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 01:06:20 -0700

Dear Tim, my sincere apologies. I have not been able to reply to your

message. I think the timing is right for such a discussion, but right now I

am very busy to make a formal commitment to this. I would participate in a

limited capacity when the time comes. Interestingly, I wrote a couple of

papers months ago which appear to be consistent with what it is going on in

this area of research/politics.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

From: "Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 8:24 AM

Subject: Re: It looks that my views on moral/practical globalization clash

to sustainability appear on track

> Lucio:

>

> Thanks very much for your comments and staying in touch. I have been

> thinking about planning a discussion on precisely that issue - The

> Kyoto process and Global Warming.

>

> Any chance that you would be willing to consult or help in organizing

> this discussion?

>

> Thanks,

>

> Tim Erickson

> Politalk Moderator

>

> >Dear Tim, following the events with the Kyoto process and the new

> >USA position appears to be leaning toward my view that this

> >confrontation/direction was coming, do not you think so?. This

> >situation reminded me some to the comments made in your

> >globalization conference.

> >My warm greetings;

• >Lucio

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

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

Subject: Sharing comments made to POLITALK in January/2001 as they appear to capture today's liberal globalization dillemas

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:18:28 -0700

Dear Friends, as usual, I am sharing here some thoughts made in the =

recent past, which some of you may find interesting.They appear to =

capture some of the dillemas changing liberal policies should be =

expected to bring and their relation to sustainability thinking.

Greetings;

Lucio munoz

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

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

January 22/2001/POLITALK: Should we expect the process of globalization =

to remain unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

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

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

Subject: Shoud we expect the process of globalization to remain =

unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:48:42 -0800

Dear Friends, I just want to start this discussion reminding everybody =

That we live in a constantly changing or dynamic world, and that we should =

Not remain static in our concepts or thoughts when political change takes =

Places within power houses, in this case the United States.

Are the liberal policies of the new administration in the USA similar to =

Or to be similar to the liberal policies of the past administration?. Are =

We about to witness a world wide divide between the morality based liberal

policies that appeared to have been on the work since 1987 with the

Bruntland report and practicality based liberal policies apparently on =

Our way from the USA, a situation which apparently did not exist a few weeks

ago?.

Will the conflict between morality and practicality affect the existing

concepts of globalization mentioned by Tim and described as based on =

full flexibility, full efficiency, deterritorialisation and borderless =

scenarios, market segmentation, destruction of traditional cultures, =

homogenization, universalisation, and flexible political change? Can diversity

be the =result of the conflict between morality based and practicality based

liberal globalization?. I believe that all these issues should make us a little =

bit aware that right now we may be at the start of a newly opened path =

toward sustainability.

Therefore, while bringing our ideas beginning today, we should remember =

That the nuture of globalization today, at least from the USA point of view,

right now may not be the same. We should keep in mine that it will be the

type of liberal policies that persist over the long-run the ones who will

define the nature and

structure(fairness, equity, shares, winners, losers....of the final =

outcome)of globalization, and therefore, the degree of global sustainability.

Under restricted and excluding liberal policies, the moral basis of

globalization will tend to erode still more. In sustainability terms, =

the sooner the clash between the proponents of morality based liberal

globalization(economic globalization subject to human and environmental

concerns) and practicality based liberal globalization(pure economic

globalization) takes place the better because it may then that it can be

established clearly in the real world that that true global liberal

sustainability may be a hybrid scenario based on the conjuctural =

interaction of diversity, openness, and optimality, not on homogeneity,

closedness, =and maximization. In theory, this appear to be the case.

These are my thoughts and your comments are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

From: "Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:17 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Question

> I'm sorry for this initial flood of e-mail, but I'm trying to lay the

> groundwork for our discussion. After sending the quotes, it occurred

> to me that the discussion questions should have come last, so here

> they are again.

>

> (Nothing more from me today - I look forward to hearing from you).

>

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

>

> 1) Do you believe that the process that we call globalization is

> changing the way that individuals identify themselves with groups or

> communities? Are we becoming more likely to identify with

> trans-national groups (religious, economic, consumer, or special

> interest) or has globalization intensified nationalistic tendencies

> and ties to local communities?

>

> 2) Do you believe that globalization (or is it americanization) is

> creating a global culture at the expense of local and national

> traditions? If so, is it a good thing, a bad thing, or is it mixed?

• Please explain......

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

To: "Odo" <>

Subject: Greetings Odo

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:32:10 -0700

My warm greetings Odo. I thought you may find these comments =

interesting. Please, take care;

Sincerely;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK=20

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 4:18 PM

Subject: Sharing comments made to POLITALK in January/2001 as they =

appear to capture today's liberal globalization dillemas

Dear Friends, as usual, I am sharing here some thoughts made in the =

recent past, which some of you may find interesting.They appear to =

capture some of the dillemas changing liberal policies should be =

expected to bring and their relation to sustainability thinking.

Greetings;

Lucio munoz

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

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

January 22/2001/POLITALK: Should we expect the process of globalization =

to remain unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

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

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>,

"Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

Subject: Shoud we expect the process of globalization to remain =

unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:48:42 -0800

Dear Friends, I just want to start this discussion reminding everybody =

That we live in a constantly changing or dynamic world, and that we should =

Not remain static in our concepts or thoughts when political change takes =

Places within power houses, in this case the United States.

Are the liberal policies of the new administration in the USA similar to =

Or to be similar to the liberal policies of the past administration?. Are =

We about to witness a world wide divide between the morality based liberal

policies that appeared to have been on the work since 1987 with the

Bruntland report and practicality based liberal policies apparently on =

Our way from the USA, a situation which apparenntly did not exist a few week

ago?.

Will the conflict between morality and practicality affect the existing

concepts of globalization mentioned by Tim and described as based on =

full flexibility, full efficiency, deterritorialisation and borderless =

scenarios, market segmentation, destruction of traditional cultures, =

homogenization, universalisation, and flexible political change? Can diversity be the =

result of the conflict between morality based and practicality based liberal

globalization?. I believe that all these issues should make us a little =

bit aware that right now we may be at the start of a newly opened path =

toward sustainability.

Therefore, while bringing our ideas beginning today, we should remember =

That the nuture of globalization today, at least from the USA point of view,

right now may not be the same.

We should keep in mine that it will be the type of liberal policies that

persist over the long-run the ones who will define the nature and

structure(fairness, equity, shares, winners, losers....of the final =

outcome)of globalization, and therefore, the degree of global sustainability.

Under restricted and excluding liberal policies, the moral basis of

globalization will tend to erode still more. In sustainability terms, =

the sooner the clash between the proponents of morality based liberal

globalization(economic globalization subject to human and environmental

concerns) and practicality based liberal globalization(pure economic

globalization) takes place the better because it may then that it can be

established clearly in the real world that that true global liberal

sustainability may be a hybrid scenario based on the conjuctural =

interaction of diversity, openness, and optimality, not on homogeneity, closedness, =

and maximization. In theory, this appear to be the case.

These are my thoughts and your comments are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

From: "Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:17 AM

Subject: [Pol-US1] Question

> I'm sorry for this initial flood of e-mail, but I'm trying to lay the

> groundwork for our discussion. After sending the quotes, it occurred

> to me that the discussion questions should have come last, so here

> they are again.

>

> (Nothing more from me today - I look forward to hearing from you).

>

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

>

> 1) Do you believe that the process that we call globalization is

> changing the way that individuals identify themselves with groups or

> communities? Are we becoming more likely to identify with

> trans-national groups (religious, economic, consumer, or special

> interest) or has globalization intensified nationalistic tendencies

> and ties to local communities?

>

> 2) Do you believe that globalization (or is it americanization) is

> creating a global culture at the expense of local and national

> traditions? If so, is it a good thing, a bad thing, or is it mixed?

> Please explain......

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

To: "Michael Dutschke" <>,

"ELAN" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: The process from Bruntland/RIO to now

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:56:22 -0700

Dear Mr. Dutschke, I agree that politics has always been there, but not =

openly out in front of science, I think. The bilief is that GOOD =

SCIENCE MUST BE BASED ON FACTS, TESTABLE FACTS, POLITICS DOES NOT NEED =

TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACTS. =20

From my point of view, the Bruntland's process and the RIO process =

provided the political stones to the scientific process, FAO-RIO-10 =

Conference just recently looked at the practical experience of working =

on the political stones burried 10 years ago. Kyoto was about applying =

the fruits of what scientiest have learned the past 10 years, if I am =

not mistaken. Yet at the implementation stage, 2001,science is set =

aside; and politics took again over.

What I see now is than in the period 1985-2000, global warming was =

seen as a possibility so science was needed;

now 2001 the comments made, including yours, appear to indicate that =

global warming is a certainty, so politics is needed. =20

I do not make these comments to be negative, just to be able to =

point out possible positive externalities. I think that from now and =

on, science can not/may not be able to disregard traditional knowledge =

as second class knowledge as it may stopped being good science if it =

does not reflect the facts/practice; and now we can not blame those who =

do not want to cooperate with social and environmental standards for not =

cooperating enough, specially those who had they pulled out of the =

process would have been seriously marginalized. If trade is both ways, =

committents should be too. =20

From the sustainability point of view, the current dynamics are a =

healthy part of the evolutionary process, which sometimes may go in =

backward-forward patterns or ups-downs moves, alone or with partners. =

However, these healthy dynamics may test social and/or environmental =

limits. In the past, the economy survived social pressures, now it also =

will have to deal with environmental pressures. I made a comment once =

in a globalization conference related to the saying " A DOS PUNTAS NO =

HAY TORO VALIENTE", which is a dillema that systainability theory =

suggest will come.

Thank you very much for your comments, they are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

---- Original Message -----=20

From: Michael Dutschke=20

To: Lucio Munoz ; ELAN=20

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 3:20 AM

Subject: Re: Is not Mr. Pronk's approach the total opposite of the =

Bruntland commission's approach?

Dear Lucio;

Climate policy as is the Kyoto Protocol has first and foremost been =

based on politics, there is no way around that. On the contrary, nobody =

would care about a 5.2% target (shrinking with every new proposal!) for =

the first budget period, which will, under the current conditions of =

uncertainty hardly be measurable and certainly will not stop global =

warming. The only -political- hope is climate policy's own dynamics to =

improve over time, e.g. when the economically and local environmental =

beneficial effects of reducing greenhouse gases will show. For me, this =

is the only reason that justifies sustaining the Kyoto process. While =

science in politics has always a subsidiary function, compared to other =

UN negociations, it is on relatively high scores, see the role of the =

IPCC reports.

The Pronk proposal to start negociating on politics and to solve =

technical issues afterwards is based on the experience of The Hague, =

where interests vested under technical arguments made the discussion =

inefficient and time-consuming. Thus, it might be didactically =

preferable to start talking business and solve the "technical" (if you =

will: "scientific") questions afterwards.

Best regards

Michael=20

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: Julio Cesar Centeno ; ELAN=20

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:01 AM

Subject: Is not Mr. Pronk's approach the total opposite of the =

Bruntland commission's approach?

Positive comments:

The Brundland Commission's approach to sustainable development =

was based, in my opinion, solely on science(a la western). SCIENCE WAS =

GOING TO DETERMINE THE POLICY. The USA position has apparently shift the =

approach 180 degrees, and now the approach to sustainable development =

will be, apparently for sure, solely based on politics(a la western). =

POLITICS IS GOING TO DETERMINE THE SCIENCE. Are we about to see the =

extintions of the so call GOOD SCIENCE?. Or are we about to get immerse =

in another of the required paradigm shifts toward sustainability?

To me the expression, "To increases the chances of success, climate =

conferences should begin with policy negotiations and proceed to =

technical discussions, Pronk said" appears to indicate that politics =

should be now before technical matters. =20

In other words, it appears to indicate that if we do not agree on a =

specific policy(eg. land use, landuse change, forestry...), no science =

is needed. Once we know the policy, let's bring the science in to =

justify it/improve it. What do others think about these issues?

Greetings;

Lucio=20

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

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN=20

Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 11:16 AM

Subject: NEW CLIMATE PROPOSALS AIM TO APPEASE USA

New Climate Proposals Aim to Appease USA=20

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, April 12, 2001 (ENS) - The chairman of =

the United Nations climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan =

Pronk, has offered a new set of compromise proposals on rules for the =

Kyoto Protocol that are aimed at persuading the United States to rejoin =

the process.=20

.....=20

..........=20

To increases the chances of success, climate conferences should =

begin with policy negotiations and proceed to technical discussions, =

Pronk said.=20

....=20

....