TALKBACK 1997 : September 01-25

Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:34:58 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Estimados amigos. Con el objeto de crear una discusion positiva y

constructiva aqui esta este mensaje.

El concepto de "desarrollo sostenido" no es usado mas aca en

paises desarrollados debido a que la definicion delos terminos

"desarrollo"(crecimiento economico continuo) y "sostenido"

(un estado balanceado) llevan a una situacion contradictoria. Por eso se

usa el termino "Sostenibilidad" el cual refleja la incorporacion de

preocupacione economicas, sociales y ambientales en la toma de decisiones.

Hay muchos articulos y libros relacionado a esto. Durante mi proceso de

validacion de resultados en centro america note que el termino"desarrollo

sostenido" esta todavia de moda por alla y parece ser que la terminologia

central de todos los programas tanto de govierno como de NGOs estan

basados en el concepto "desarrollo sostenido". Mi pregunta es, se usa

"desarrollo sostenido" en ves de "sostenibilidad" en centro

america(en paises subdesarrollados) porque los profesionales

en centro america no lo han criticado o porque significa todo y nada a la

ves. Si el concepto de desarrollo sostenido de la comision de ambiente

y desarrollo sostenido(WCED/87) se usa, es desarrollo sostenido

sostenibilidad o es sostenibilidad desarrollo sostenido? Por ejemplo,

el desarrollo economico consistente con la ecologia puede ser sostenido

pero no sostenible o el desarrollo social consistente con la ecologia

puede ser sostenido por no sostenible. Comentarios son bien venidos.

Saludes a todos;

Lucio

Wed, 10 Sep 1997 11:34:51 -0500 (CDT)

Ricardo

At 11:34 PM -0000 9/9/97, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

>Durante mi proceso de

>validacion de resultados en centro america note que el termino"desarrollo

>sostenido" esta todavia de moda por alla y parece ser que la terminologia

>central de todos los programas tanto de govierno como de NGOs estan

>basados en el concepto "desarrollo sostenido". Mi pregunta es, se usa

>"desarrollo sostenido" en ves de "sostenibilidad" en centro

>america(en paises subdesarrollados) porque los profesionales

>en centro america no lo han criticado o porque significa todo y nada a la

>ves.

Este es un tema recurrente y tedioso por su ingenuidad. Lucio, no lo tomes

a modo personal, sino que en forma general. Los choques que resultan del

tema se deben principalmente a divergencias en ideologi'as y hasta

cosmologi'as, porque de otro modo con un diccionario se resolveri'an las

dudas en cuanto a significados y definiciones.

Punto primero: la PALABREJA. Este pobre cognato 'sostenibilidad' causa

demasiados problemas y nos hemos de deshacer de el de un vez por todas.

Deriva del vocablo ingle's, el cual tambie'n es controvertido (y al

propo'sito, difiero contundentemente de la opinio'n que en los pai'ses

"desarrollados" se ha pasado mas alla' en cuanto a comprensio'n de este

concepto; las evidencias no lo comprueban). Para mi gusto contamos en

castellano con mejor vocablo para describir al concepto, y es el que usan

nuestros conge'neres del cono sur (y tambie'n los franceses):

perdurabilidad. Aun cuando esta palabra todavi'a permite divagancias en

cuanto a su implementacio'n, por lo menos no sufre de la ambiguedad y la

distorsio'n lingui'sticia de la primera. En castellano, yo puedo "sostener"

una carga, o "sustentar" un punto de vista, pero de ninguna manera implica

alguna de estas palabras la "calidad" de una accio'n, ni el marco temporal

de la accio'n, lo cual es indispensable para cerrar cualquier concepto de

perdurabilidad. Esta u'ltima palabra encierra lo que creo intuimos todos al

hablar de la "sostenibilidad," y no permite desprender al tiempo como un

factor i'ntegro del concepto mismo.

Punto segundo: la icongruencia del concepto del "DESARROLLO PERDURABLE."

Lucio apunta:

>El concepto de "desarrollo sostenido" no es usado mas aca en

>paises desarrollados debido a que la definicion delos terminos

>"desarrollo"(crecimiento economico continuo) y "sostenido"

>(un estado balanceado) llevan a una situacion contradictoria.

Esto es un artefacto ideolo'gico. Mientras estemos atados a la creencia de

que el "crecimiento econo'mico" es sino'nimo con avance social y major

equidad social entonces no se resolvera' la inco'gnita que describe Lucio

tan excelentemente. El economista Herman Daly distingue entre el

CRECIMIENTO y el DESARROLLO. Para el, el crecimiento es sencillamente un

aumento en volu'men, lo cual por si' solo no implica ni gran bien ni gran

mal. Esto se decide segu'n cada caso. El desarrollo implica directamente

una mejori'a, la realizacio'n de un potencial mayor al estado actual. Luego

entonces puede haber desarrollo perdurable desligado del crecimiento

econo'mico, como tambie'n asociado al mismo, pero lo primero no depende de

lo segundo, sino que la clave es que son dos cosas distintas. Tal vez sea

este el derivado mas importante de tal punto de vista, el cual comparto

plenamente, el hecho de que el desarrollo econo'mico no conlleva por

obligacio'n al desarrollo perdurable (nos cansari'amos de dar ejemplos). Si

existiera claridad al respecto habri'a un universo de dificultades que lo

tal nos evitari'a.

Punto tercero: nuestras IDEOLOGIAS nos separan mas que nuestros

vocabularios. Es claro que casi todos caemos (demonos cuenta o no) dentro

de dos campos conceptuales al expresar nuestros conceptos de perdurabilidad:

1) perdurabilidad "Fuerte": los seres humanos formamos parte de una

bio'sfera que es simulta'neamente la fuente de nuestros recursos y el

depo'sito de nuestros desperdicios. Para mantener en forma indefinida

nuestra existencia y calidad de vida, hay que partir de un reconocimiento e

inventario confiable de los recursos finitos disponibles y normar nuestros

comportamientos segu'n tal informacio'n. Vivamos en base al intere's

ecolo'gico de nuestra rica bio'sfera, pero no desgastemos el capital

ecolo'gico en forma extrayente, y ultimadamente egoi'stica e ignorante.

2) perdurabilidad "De'bil": la verdadera base de nuestra riqueza como

sociedad es nuestro ingenio y esfuerzo. Los recursos no son nuestro mayor

limitante, sino que nuestra imaginacio'n. Los recursos pueden ser finitos,

pero al final de cuentas estos son sustituibles, y es va'lido desgastar por

lo menos una porcio'n de la reserva finita de recursos naturales porque no

hay que olvidarnos que a cambio de ello mejoramos el capital social,

nuestra calidad de vida, y esto mismo nos ayudara' a vencer posteriormente

las limitantes fi'sicas del medio ambiente.

Esos son los temas acerca de los cuales debemos debatir e informarnos los

unos a los otros. Los argumentos sobre palabrejas son frustantes como

infructuosos.

Hasta moztla.

Ricardo

10 Sep 1997 10:50:59 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Concuerdo mucho con Ricardo. Discusiones semanticas son debilitantes. Lo

importante es la operacionalizacion de la idea 'sostenible' la misma que

yo considero como un proceso ecologico caracterizado por un

comportamiento en busca de ideales y este comportamiento a su vez esta

caracterizado por el deseo y la abilidad (oportunidad y recursos) de

avanzar en busca de un ideal. Mas detalles los pueden encontrar en

web.nmsu.edu/~juwandem/seminar.html

Atentos saludos,

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

|J.C. Wandemberg

Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:46:59 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Ante todo gracias a Lucio por sus valioso aporte y sus ideas muy claras.

Aqui van mis dos centavos:

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

>snip

> Ninguno de los comentarios trato de responder mi pregunta: Es

> desarrollo sostenido sostenibilidad o es sustenibilidad desarrollo

> sostenido?

Yo considero la segunda opcion como la acertada (i.e., sustentabilidad

deberia ser desarrollo sostenido) Pero obviamente primero debera darse un

cambio de paradigma con respecto a lo que se considera "desarrollo"

enfocando por supuesto en calidad y no en cantidad desde el punto de

vista de aquel sujeto a "desarrollarse".

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> TEORIAS POSIBLES

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> I BC I Bc I bC I bc I

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> A I ABC I ABc I AbC I Abc I

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> a I aBC I aBc I abC I abc I

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

>

> 8) teoria ABC

> Esta asume que los tres sistemas son entes activos. Las

> actividades economicas deben de reflejar las preocupaciones sociales y

> ambientales. Las demandas sociales deben de reflejar las preocupaciones

> economicas y ambientales. Los programas ambientales deben de reflejar las

> preocupaciones economicas y sociales. "the sustainability paradigm".

Sin duda esta es la unica teoria que se compadece con la realidad y

sobre todo desde el punto de vista de la teoria de systemas abiertos y el

modelo de correlacion directiva (i.e., "sostenibilidad fuerte").

> Puntos generales:

> 5) si se usa el concepto "sostenabilidad" en ves de "desarrollo sostenido"

> la situacion seria mas clara y las opciones existentes para hacercarse al

> ideal de sostenibilidad serian bien claras.

Considero todavia necesario el definir el tal concepto de

"sostenibilidad" de modo que pueda ser operacionalizado empiricamente.

Atentos saludos,

JCW

Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT)

Dear friends. Again with a positive goal I am going to extend the

"sustainability discussion a little more by forwarding a message I sent to

the RESECON LIST. Nobody replied formally which indicates to be that

there is not much interest there about this. I hope I can create

some interest here.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:03:42 -0700 (PDT)

From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <munoz@unixg.ubc.ca>

To: Multiple recipients of list RESECON <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Subject: Choices

In the past months I have been passing a short survey for validation

purposes in central america in order to determine local perceptions about

deforestation causality. From the dynamic of this process, the following

question came to my mind: Should central american countries(developing

countries) aim at reaching sustainable underdevelopment in their journey

toward sustainability first instead of aiming at sustainable development?

Is the route toward sustainability the same for both developed and

developing countries?. Comments are welcome.

Lucio

Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT)

The Benevolent Being

Interesting questions, although I would have to argue that there is

nothing sustainable about underdevelopment. I think what we have to ask

ourselves is what do we mean by development, sustainable and otherwise.

To the second part of your question, I would have to say that the

so-called "developed" countries are in fact developing and do need to take

a different route to sustainability. It has been argued that developed

countries have to become less "developed" in order to become more

sustainable. Whether or not that is the case depends again on your

definition of development. If we believe that development is a process

rather than a goal, it becomes clear that there is no such animal as a

developed country and each country has to forge its own path to

sustainability.

Webster

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, you wrote:

> Subject: Choices

>

> In the past months I have been passing a short survey for validation

> purposes in central america in order to determine local perceptions about

> deforestation causality. From the dynamic of this process, the following

> question came to my mind: Should central american countries(developing

> countries) aim at reaching sustainable underdevelopment in their journey

> toward sustainability first instead of aiming at sustainable development?

> Is the route toward sustainability the same for both developed and

> developing countries?. Comments are welcome.

> Lucio

Sun, 14 Sep 1997 17:02:55 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Friends, given that not much interest was created by me

previous postings, I will add my last one to close the cycle. Again, from

the positive side I bring the subject:

Another aspect that called my attention recently was the move of

Costa Rica in the direction of selling CO2 sequestration bonds. I have

also not seem much being said about the "potential negatives of such a

policy in developing countries", just the "potential positive aspects" are

highlighted". What would be the potential negative aspects of such a

policy in developing countries and what would be the potential benefits

for developed countries? Why the same project being carried out in Costa

rica was not carried out in the United States or Canada if it is for

demonstration purposes?. Would this CO2 policy be consistent with actual

sustainability efforts in those countries?

Greetings;

Lucio

Sun, 14 Sep 1997 19:15:13 -0700

cschmidt03

Lucio:

Just a "seat of the pants" reaction vis-a-vis potential problems with joint

implementation projects like Costa Rica's carbon sequestration: the potential

for misunderstanding is enormous. Put crudely, what we're talking about is

preserving forests in LDCs to absorb carbon from industrialized countries'

hydrocarbon use. (However, there are carbon sequestration projects in the U.S.

Someone on the list should know details, or I can try to track down the info.)

I can't help remembering how certain intellectuals in Cochabamba, Bolivia, as

well as coca growers in the Chapare Valley, interpreted the "privatization" of

the management of the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park (management was conceded

to an NGO supported by U.S. conservation groups): they believed (sincerely)

that it was part of a plot to eventually start oil drilling in the park. That

they were mistaken was not the point. Nor was the point that the NGO might

manage the park better than the government could. The problem was the perception

of a privatization of "national interests."

I think that, unless very carefully managed, JI may give the same impression

that conservation is a fig leaf for protecting foreign economic interests.

That doesn't mean I don't see great potential for JI, just that it could be a

political minefield.

Schmidt

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:15:41 -0800

Kenworthy

A couple of observations. POSITIVE. I have heard it said or read

somewhere that Costa Rica needs this income stream in order to continue

financing reforestation through current programs of financial incentives

(forestry bonds, tax write-offs, etc.). For some years now half the CR

state's forestry budget has come from abroad. Now many big players are

retiring from the scene (inc. USAID). So, a funding crisis looms, to which

carbon bonds are one solution. NEGATIVE 1. A secondary bond market may be

created where carbon bonds will be traded for reasons other than they were

created for. Being no expert in high finance, I can't say more, but people

in the know see danger in this. Possibly that the bonds could be driven

into worthlessness by purely financial manipulations? NEGATIVE 2 is the

impact on United States civil society. International trade in

environmental ills can become a way for affluent societies to buy their way

out of irresponsible habits. US autos have gotten heavier and less

efficient in recent years -- at the same time that the Clinton

administration says it wants to "do something" about global climate change.

Hmmm. Educating the US public is easier when -- as with nicotine --

ordinary citizens directly experience the tradeoffs. Carbon bonds may

delay that experience. I don't see that as a problem etched in stone but

one requiring strategizing. Finally, as a little "process" comment, Lucio,

I didn't hear anger in Corinne's response, just appropriate wariness (un

"ojo," come dicen los argentinos). Saludos, Bud

Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:12:19 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Bud. It can be said that there are two types of policies that

could be used to raise revenue or create incentives for environmental or

any other purpose: 1) traditional closed ended approaches, which are

subject to only local forces: income tax, environmental taxes, tax

write-offs or any other incentive and local agreements, local savings and

borrowing...; and 2) open ended approaches, which are subject to non-local

forces: international borrowing, international CO2 sequestration bonds,...

The trade offs of international borrowing for developing countries

are very well documented as well as its possible role on promoting

sustainability or unsustainability. The trade offs of promoting a

policy of CO2 sequestration are not very well documented. What can be

the impact of this policy on land tenure in less developed countries? What

can be the impact of this policy on cash crop production in the long-term?

It is known that when the profit margin is there for non-forest uses in

developing countries and there is not regulation, full forest conversion

to other uses is likely to happen. A lot is known about the economic,

social and environmental consequence of that outcome. On the other hand,

it must be expected that if the profit margin for forest uses in less

developed countries is created by policies like the CO2 sequestration

policy and there is no regulation, then full conversion of non-forested

land to forest uses is likely to happen. In conclusion, one side of the

same extreme coin is full forest land conversion to other uses, and the

other side of the coin is full non-forest land conversion to forest uses.

Both sides of that coin are not consistent with "sustainability"

according to the approached I described. Hence, answering my own

question, a policy of CO2 sequestration, given the right conditions may

lead to full conversion of non-forest land to forest uses as well as

increased concentration of land holdings in few hands. My new question

now is can we used the concept of sustainability as a tool to balance

extreme solutions?

Greetings to all.

Lucio

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Bud Kenworthy wrote:

> A couple of observations. POSITIVE. I have heard it said or read

> somewhere that Costa Rica needs this income stream in order to continue

> financing reforestation through current programs of financial incentives

> (forestry bonds, tax write-offs, etc.). For some years now half the CR

> state's forestry budget has come from abroad. Now many big players are

> retiring from the scene (inc. USAID). So, a funding crisis looms, to which

> carbon bonds are one solution. NEGATIVE 1. A secondary bond market may be

> created where carbon bonds will be traded for reasons other than they were

> created for. Being no expert in high finance, I can't say more, but people

> in the know see danger in this. Possibly that the bonds could be driven

> into worthlessness by purely financial manipulations? NEGATIVE 2 is the

> impact on United States civil society. International trade in

> environmental ills can become a way for affluent societies to buy their way

> out of irresponsible habits. US autos have gotten heavier and less

> efficient in recent years -- at the same time that the Clinton

> administration says it wants to "do something" about global climate change.

> Hmmm. Educating the US public is easier when -- as with nicotine --

> ordinary citizens directly experience the tradeoffs. Carbon bonds may

> delay that experience. I don't see that as a problem etched in stone but

> one requiring strategizing. Finally, as a little "process" comment, Lucio,

> I didn't hear anger in Corinne's response, just appropriate wariness (un

• "ojo," come dicen los argentinos). Saludos, Bud

Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:26:04 -0800

Bud Kenworthy (kenworthy@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU)

Lucio, you posit two extremes neither of which is attractive or viable. On

that I think we all agree. What happens if instead of discussing land as a

homogeneous thing, we recognize its natural variations? In other words,

can we soften the axiomatic logic by returning our gaze to the real world?

For example, several researchers coincide in stating that the optimal

use of Costa Rican territory is one-third forested. Obviously that's not

any third but a collection of specific areas identified by GIS and other

techniques. Promoting reforestation or maintaining existing forests in

THOSE areas is what I would hope carbon bonds would fund, not the

conversion of suitable agricultural lands to forests. As with "getting

the prices right" (incorporating externalities in commodity prices, e.g.),

wouldn't you agree that "sustainability" requires "getting land use right"?

Governments have the tools for doing this.

The outside-inside funding issue also may have an "in between" option:

outside funding with inside control. The Costa Rican government has

written its own forestry laws; it needs outside resources (it claims) to

implement those laws. While decision-making and funding never can be fully

separated, endowments offer one potential mechanism for maximizing

separation. Costa Rica has experimented with endowments for environmental

purposes, with what success I can't say. If any elanero has information to

share on that, I'd love to hear it.

Sorry to keep referencing Costa Rica, by no means a typical Latin

American nation, but that's my only means of gounding my comments in

reality. Thanks, Bud

From: Lucio

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Bud Kenworthy wrote:

> Lucio, you posit two extremes neither of which is attractive or viable. On

> that I think we all agree.

.....My intention of going extreme is to hightlight the positive and

negative aspects that are well documented and the ones that are not, so

that I can bring my original point: the potencial negatives of a CO2

policy required a closer atention from the part of developing countries.

For example, the historical problem has been the conversion of forested

areas to non-forest areas when the profit margings from non-forest land

uses are there and regulation is not there or weak. Everybody knows

that this process is not viable, but is taking place even today due to

active market forces. The solutions to this unviable event relates to

apropriate land use planning, reforestation, clear property rights

allocations, green taxes, and so on. For a policy

like the CO2 policy to produce the opposite trend of land conversion(fron

non-forest uses to forest uses) you only need to make the profit margin

from forest uses higher than the profit margin from non-forest uses. This

is a process that also may not be viable, but it may happen. If it

happens, it will need a totally different treatment, do'nt you think so?.

Has somebody thought about what could be the impact of a CO2 sequestration

policy in all tropical countries on FREE TRADE?

>What happens if instead of discussing land as a

> homogeneous thing, we recognize its natural variations? In other words,

> can we soften the axiomatic logic by returning our gaze to the real world?

.....In the real word, do the forces estimulating the conversion of forest

land to non-forest uses in central america, not just costa rica, recognize

natural variations? I do not think so. Is it not reasonable to expect

that the forces estimulated by the a CO2 policy will not do so too? for

example, just as forest land best suitable for forest use and not

suitable for agriculture was converted into non-forest land, it can happen

that land already in agriculture and best suitable for agriculture may be

reforested, if the profit incentives are there. Remember my goal is not

to deny the potencial benefits of the CO2 policy, but to highlight

potencial negatives.

> For example, several researchers coincide in stating that the optimal

> use of Costa Rican territory is one-third forested. Obviously that's not

> any third but a collection of specific areas identified by GIS and other

> techniques.

......Regulation is needed to make sure that the conversion of forest land

to other uses do not surpase determined optimal levels(one third in the

case of costa rica). Moreover, regulation will be needed to make sure the

CO2 policy do no override the oposing policy and lead to more protection

that the one disirable(one third in the case of costa rica).

>Promoting reforestation or maintaining existing forests in

> THOSE areas is what I would hope carbon bonds would fund, not the

> conversion of suitable agricultural lands to forests.

.....Experience shows that good intentions are not enough, specially if

thy depend on market forces as the two situation under discussion do.

The addition of the CO2 policy changes the analysis and complicate more

these good intentions.

>As with "getting the prices right" (incorporating externalities in

>commodity prices, e.g.), wouldn't you agree that "sustainability"

>requires "getting land use right"?

.....Getting the price right(land use) right may mean getting the right

economic price(land use) or getting the right social price(land use) or

getting the right environmental price(land use) or gettig the

sustainability price(land use). If you look at the different theories I

posted before, getting for example the right economic price or the

right economic land use may maximize economic

benefits while having no impact on or worsening social and environmental

conditions. What is consitent with "sustainability" as I defined is

"getting the right combination of land uses" or "getting the right price"

consistent with economic, social and environmental concerns.

> Governments have the tools for doing this.

.....I am affraid this may not be true. Governments may

have the tools to determine "the right economic land use or price", but

not the "right social price or right social land use and not the right

environmental price or right environmental land use". For example,

the policies being implemented in the region to increased the rentability

of agricultural and livestock production seem not to reflect the "the

right price or land use" consideration that you mentioned.

How will the CO2 sequestration policy affects this "right price

considerations"?

> The outside-inside funding issue also may have an "in between" option:

> outside funding with inside control.

.....This is called "External Debt", you have the control to spend(you are

free to spend) it in ways already specified in the borrowing contract.

You either have your own money, and the freedomn that goes with it or you

borrow money with the attachments that it has. If there is any major

intenational borrowing or financing approach "in between", which allows

you to borrow money to do what you want and change your mind as many times

as you want, I would like to know. Selling CO2 bonds as the external debt

is also "borrowing", but the attachement may be different and perhaps

less predictable.

>The Costa Rican government has written its own forestry laws; it needs

>outside resources (it claims) to implement those laws. While

>decision-making and funding never can be fully separated, endowments

>offer one potential mechanism for maximizing

> separation. Costa Rica has experimented with endowments for environmental

> purposes, with what success I can't say. If any elanero has information to

> share on that, I'd love to hear it.

> Sorry to keep referencing Costa Rica, by no means a typical Latin

> American nation, but that's my only means of gounding my comments in

> reality. Thanks, Bud

>

-----The potencial benefits of using the CO2 policy to raise funds for

enviromental protection should be considered, and can not be denied.

However, this consideration should be taken based on a careful analysis of

the potencial negatives. How can this policy be used so that the economy,

society and the environment benefit at the same time so it is consistent

with sustainability? That is to be sorted out.

Dear Bud, thanks for your comments;

Greetings;

Lucio

Note:

Since there is not much participation, I will leave it here and

let's look for a more interesting topic.

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:30:38 -0400 (EDT)

RecyclerJH

WHat are CO2 sequestration bonds and how do they work? Are they like selling

emmision credits?

confused or possibly just ignorant

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:53:18 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Hello. I want to apologize to you. If we had started from here things

would had been easier. I will send you copy of the original posting made

related to the CO2 bonds in Costa Rica.

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 RecyclerJH@aol.com wrote:

> WHat are CO2 sequestration bonds and how do they work? Are they like selling

> emmision credits?

> confused or possibly just ignorant

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:56:58 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Save forests everywhere. Cut demand for wood. Legalize hemp. Cut subsidies

for loggers (not the least of which are free roads). Cut taxes on wages,

putting at a disadvantage the labor-intensive enterprises such as recycling,

reforesting, de-construction, etc. It's the capital-intensive ones (e.g.,

clear-cutting) that get the tax breaks.

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:01:51 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

What is this? Who are you? Your posting has nothing to do with my

posting? Did you write what is below at random or are you answering even

without reading my postings?If you read my postings, what is below shows

ignorance or lack of respect for positive and constructive thinking in

this list.

Lucio Munoz

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 Geonomist@aol.com wrote:

> Save forests everywhere. Cut demand for wood. Legalize hemp. Cut subsidies

> for loggers (not the least of which are free roads). Cut taxes on wages,

> putting at a disadvantage the labor-intensive enterprises such as recycling,

> reforesting, de-construction, etc. It's the capital-intensive ones (e.g.,

> clear-cutting) that get the tax breaks.

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:26:24 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Estimado Lucio, yo no creo que Geonimist quiso ofenderte sino simplemente

aportar si punto de vista, el cual, dicho sea de paso, a mi me parece muy

valido.

Saludos,

JCWB

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> What is this? Who are you? Your posting has nothing to do with my

> posting? Did you write what is below at random or are you answering even

> without reading my postings?If you read my postings, what is below shows

> ignorance or lack of respect for positive and constructive thinking in

> this list.

> Lucio Munoz

> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 Geonomist@aol.com wrote:

> > Save forests everywhere. Cut demand for wood. Legalize hemp. Cut subsidies

> > for loggers (not the least of which are free roads). Cut taxes on wages,

> > putting at a disadvantage the labor-intensive enterprises such as recycling,

> > reforesting, de-construction, etc. It's the capital-intensive ones (e.g.,

> > clear-cutting) that get the tax breaks.

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:42:53 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Lucio,

Jeff.

Geonomista, soy yo. Soy miembro de una organizcion, pero los otros miembros,

sin duda, tengan mas sesos y sensibilidad que yo. Es me culpa, no los otros.

Como ecologista, me gustan todos los nexos. Como dice John Muir, "jale a uno,

todos otros siguen." El problema de bosques se puede atacar de ambos lados,

ofetta y que? no recuerdo (supply and demand). De ambos lados, quizas pueden

tener mas exito los activistas.

Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:50:17 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Lucio M,

Jeff S.

Since I don't feel a lack of respect, I must be ignorant. Yet ignorance need

not be permanent. I am willing to learn what you are teaching.

Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:32:08 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear friends. The basic point I wanted to highlight with my posting

related to the C02 policy is that if it is actually and fully used then

the "whole traditional development model" changes because then we would

have not just economic based market incentives but also environmentally

based market incentives. In this scenario, the policy recommendations

that Jeff mentioned before may not be appropriate because "the development

model" has changed. However, this is usually a common aspect(problem) of

policy since for example most people agree that "sustainability" requires

a system approach, but it is subject to a non-system treatment in

practice. Now, assuming that the new model prevails for a while, can this

system be sustainable without regulation?. Yes, no, maybe, and why?.

Your comments are welcome.

Have a nice weekend!

Lucio

Sat, 20 Sep 1997 10:19:27 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Given the directive correlation between system and environment (self)

regulation is essential if the system is to maintain a proactive-adaptive

relationaship with its environment.

Saludos,

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

Wandemberg |

|Ph.D Candidate |

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear friends. The basic point I wanted to highlight with my posting

> related to the C02 policy is that if it is actually and fully used then

> the "whole traditional development model" changes because then we would

> have not just economic based market incentives but also environmentally

> based market incentives. In this scenario, the policy recommendations

> that Jeff mentioned before may not be appropriate because "the development

> model" has changed. However, this is usually a common aspect(problem) of

> policy since for example most people agree that "sustainability"

• requires a system approach, but it is subject to a non-system treatment in

> practice. Now, assuming that the new model prevails for a while, can this

> system be sustainable without regulation?. Yes, no, maybe, and why?.

> Your comments are welcome.

> Have a nice weekend!

> Lucio

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:58:56 -0700 (PDT)

Dear friends, to finish up my participation in this "discussion" I would

like to call to the attention to the process of bureocratization of

the environmental knowledge that is taking place in lain

America at the university level(Environmentally/sustainability

based Ph.D and MS programs aiming at "sustainable development") as shown

in the different "Environmental Training Newsletters", ETN/UNEP.

Given the confusion related to using the concept of sustainable

development as I highlighted and on the apparent need to "think globally"

and "act locally" when dealing with sustainability this high speed process

of concentration of knowledge that is taking place in Latin o America at

the university level make back fire. When looking at the objectives of

university programs in different Latin o American countries I noted

different views of sustainability within the same program in a country and

between similar programs between countries. This may lead to problems of

comparability between "sustainable development programs in the same

country and in different countries because each program reflects different

views encrusted within the same concept as I have shown. I hope we all

learned some from my comments, especially in Latino America/Centro

America.

Greetings to all;

Sincerely;

Lucio

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:37:52 -0400 (EDT)

Alicea

Dear Lucio: I have been following closely the discussion about

"sustainable" development and I believe that the problems with

sustainability are related to the lack of challenge of the political and

economic model that are the causes of "unsustainability"

I mean, it does not matter that we have several definitions about

"sustainability" but to what extent these so called sustainability

strategies are proposing a new paradigm that will define a new vision of

society and our definiton as living creatures spiritually, bilogically,

connected to all other living creatures. Furthermore, I believe that we

need to understand that there are going to be differetn strategies that

are going to be used to achieve sustainability( as diverse as nature is)

but there is going a main linkage: this sustainability will transform the

whole concept of humanity and our relatinship with nature.

For me, more disturbing than the " burecraterizzation of knowledge in the

university is the fact that an homogenization of knowledge is happening.

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear friends, to finish up my participation in this "discussion" I would

> like to call to the attention to the process of bureocratization of

> the environmental knowledge that is taking place in lain

> America at the university level(Environmentally/sustainability

> based Ph.D and MS programs aiming at "sustainable development") as shown

> in the different "Environmental Training Newsletters", ETN/UNEP.

> Given the confusion related to using the concept of sustainable

> development as I highlighted and on the apparent need to "think globally"

> and "act locally" when dealing with sustainability this high speed process

> of concentration of knowledge that is taking place in Latin o America at

> the university level make back fire. When looking at the objectives of

> university programs in different Latin o American countries I noted

> different views of sustainability within the same program in a country and

> between similar programs between countries. This may lead to problems of

> comparability between "sustainable development programs in the same

> country and in different countries because each program reflects different

> views encrusted within the same concept as I have shown. I hope we all

> learned some from my comments, especially in Latino America/Centro

> America.

> Greetings to all;

> Sincerely;

> Lucio

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:07:32 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Carlos. I totally agree in what you said below with respect to

the "hidden" limitations to sustainability. The framework as proposed

assumed political certainty. However, if political uncertainty is added,

the analysis becomes trickier, but generally, it not just still hold, but

also it would justify more the need to clarify "what type of sustainable

developmet" we are endorsing. I also agree that "homogenization of

knowledge" may be a bigger threat to "sustainability" than the

beaurocratization of knowledge, but rememember that the homogenization and

beaurocratization of environmental knowledge in latino america may not be

separated events. In fact, the western way of thinking(scientific) is

being exported to latino american universities, since it makes economic

sense. Why to bring students and professionals from developing countries

to developed countries if we can teach them there? The irony of all this

tranfer of knoledge is that it help us to understand and think "globally",

but make us more unattached to the local context and to thinking

"locally". Carlos thank you for your comment.

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Carlos Alicea wrote:

> Dear Lucio: I have been following closely the discussion about

> "sustainable" development and I believe that the problems with

> sustainability are related to the lack of challenge of the political and

> economic model that are the causes of "unsustainability"

> I mean, it does not matter that we have several definitions about

> "sustainability" but to what extent these so called sustainability

> strategies are proposing a new paradigm that will define a new vision of

> society and our definiton as living creatures spiritually, bilogically,

> connected to all other living creatures. Furthermore, I believe that we

> need to understand that there are going to be differetn strategies that

> are going to be used to achieve sustainability( as diverse as nature is)

> but there is going a main linkage: this sustainability willtransform the

> whole concept of humanity and our relatinship with nature.

> For me, more disturbing than the " burecraterizzation of knowledge in the

> university is the fact that an homogenization of knowledge is happening.

>

> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

>

> > Dear friends, to finish up my participation in this "discussion" I would

> > like to call to the attention to the process of bureocratization of

> > the environmental knowledge that is taking place in lain

> > America at the university level(Environmentally/sustainability

> > based Ph.D and MS programs aiming at "sustainable development") as shown

> > in the different "Environmental Training Newsletters", ETN/UNEP.

> > Given the confusion related to using the concept of sustainable

> > development as I highlighted and on the apparent need to "think globally"

> > and "act locally" when dealing with sustainability this high speed process

> > of concentration of knowledge that is taking place in Latin o America at

> > the university level make back fire. When looking at the objectives of

> > university programs in different Latin o American countries I noted

> > different views of sustainability within the same program in a country and

> > between similar programs between countries. This may lead to problems of

> > comparability between "sustainable development programs in the same

> > country and in different countries because each program reflects different

> > views encrusted within the same concept as I have shown. I hope we all

> > learned some from my comments, especially in Latino America/Centro

> > America.

> > Greetings to all;

> > Sincerely;

> > Lucio

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 18:28:22 -0600

Pastore

On 23 Sep 97 at 17:37, Carlos Alicea wrote:

> Dear Lucio: I have been following closely the discussion about

> "sustainable" development and I believe that the problems with

> sustainability are related to the lack of challenge of the political

> and economic model that are the causes of "unsustainability"...

Carlos,

I partially agree with you concerning the "lack of challenge",

not so much to the "political and economic model" rather than

the 'politicians' whose economic interests mandate the "model"

which is the cause of "unsustainability"--particularly regarding

tourism.

It took a while for many politicos to catch on that all the cute

artist renderings of tourists being whisked through natural parks

and ruin sites on monorails a la visionary Nat Geo was a good

advertising gimmick. There is now a zoo's choo-choo train at

Tulum for example.

Ruin sites, national parks, etc., are now being 'privatized' on a

massive scale to optimize their monetary exploitation. What was

only indifference in the past regarding enviornmental and

cultural sustainability, has now become the province of slick

copy-writers employed to glorify a new-found lip-service. The

fact is, I have yet to see one site which, when appropriated by

politico-investor-developers, has done anything but the contrary

to enhancing any kind of sustainability other than income-wise.

Moreover, in imitation of the only role models they may know:

the iIndigenous, seeing the lucre produced by the gimmicky

developments, too often strive for the same with their

properties, and their cultures.

It does seem that the only way to assure any real environmental

or cultural sustainability is to prohibit enviormental and

cultural sites from any kind of tourism and subsequent

development, which is as, unfortunately, as unlikely than

challenging the politico-investor-developers from constraining

themselves, to, at least, limit their least grasping excesses.

In the end, I can't help but think that the whole subject of

"sustainability" especially in regard to tourism will have done

anything but a disservice to the goals so nobly sought by having

called too much attention to those places and peoples who might

have been better off never having come to the public's

attention.

Best Regards,

Pastore

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:34:33 -0700 (PDT)

The Benevolent Being

Here! Here!

I agree whole-heartedly with Carlos. I have only been following this

discussion peripherally, but it seems to me that discussions of

sustainability need to be far more critical of political and economic

systems that have proven themselves unsustainable. I firmly believe that

we cannot separate the ends from the means. If we want to build more

sustainable societies, we cannot use the tools and models of unsustainable

ones.

Webster

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:55:31 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

I couldn't agree with the need to challenge the current development

paradigm. The question is how? and who is going to do it? My own answer is

by the awakening of civil society NOW!

Kind regards,

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

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:35:17 -0600

Pastore

On 23 Sep 97 at 20:55, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> I couldn't agree with the need to challenge the current

> development paradigm. The question is how? and who is going to

> do it? My own answer is by the awakening of civil society NOW!

If you mean, by "civil society", the civil servents: they're all on

the take.

If you mean, by "civil society", the common civilian: they're too

busy making a living --or dreaming of their ideal vacations at

(gasp!) all-inclusive eco-lodges where (hopefully!) time-share

marketers foot all the bills.

If you mean, by "civil society", those members of society who happen

to be 'civil': they're just coming from the bank.

150,000 hectares of the Mayan coast has just been appropriated for

a mega-'eco'-tourism project for, ironically, "The Mayan Coast".

Geez!

Civily yours,

Pastore

Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:55:03 -0600

Pastore

Excuse me: The point is: when will those paradigimizing

"'sustainable' tourism" for example wake-up and learn that their

teachings are, for the most part, serving overwhelmingly as pretexts

for further exploitation; that, when it comes to practical

application: there is no such thing as 'sustainable' tourism.

There are visitable, non-infrastructered nature or

'heritage' reserves, or there's not --simple.

Saludos,

Pastore

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:47:13 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, John Pastore wrote:

> If you mean, by "civil society", the common civilian: they're too

> busy making a living --or dreaming of their ideal vacations at

> (gasp!) all-inclusive eco-lodges where (hopefully!) time-share

> marketers foot all the bills.

Yes, I mean all citizens at large, and if most of them are too busy doing

something else surely there must be some who can afford to take the

initials steps challenging the current paradigm. I guess that's what we

are trying to do right now.

Cheers,

JC

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:26:33 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Benevolent. The heart of my posting have been to highlight that:

1) we need to be critical as you mentioned below about the development

"remedies" being given to latino american/central american countries;

2) that just being critical is not enough, we need to developed

alternative to what we criticise; and 3) confrontation does not lead to

"sustainability", but constructive discourse may.

I hope I did not fail in trying to call attention to the above.

I will retreat from this topic for a while.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, The Benevolent Being wrote:

>

> Here! Here!

> I agree whole-heartedly with Carlos. I have only been following this

> discussion peripherally, but it seems to me that discussions of

> sustainability need to be far more critical of political and economic

> systems that have proven themselves unsustainable. I firmly believe that

> we cannot separate the ends from the means. If we want to build more

> sustainable societies, we cannot use the tools and models of unsustainable

> ones.

Webster

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 18:03:43 -0300 (EST)

Carlos Tautz

Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, 24, sept., 1997

dear friends,

It seems my name was mistakenly involved in a discussion (between Lucio and

Jeff) I've got nothing to do with.

Please, pay attention: my full name is Carlos Tautz and I'm based in

Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

Warmest regards from a hot, sunny and humid soring afternoon in Rio,

Carlos Tautz

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:00:17 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Carlos S. F. T.,

Jeff S.

Your report shows four subsidies - agriculture, water, transportation, and

energy - being bad. What subsidies, if any, are good? Since all distort price

and invite corruption, maybe the system itself of subsidization is flawed.

With the economic values that society generates, perhaps we should collect

and share them on a per capita basis - a broader, fuller version of the

Alaska oil dividend. It'd empower people at the grassroots level to make

economic choices. Could that be a model for sustainability?

Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Carlos and Jeff. The market tool of subsidization seems to

be flawed because "the currente development model" has only economic based

market incentives, which when susbsidised, increased the speed of resource

conversion. If the market had, at least two types of market incentives:

economic based and environmentally based the implication of the

subsidization mechanism would change. Just imagine for a second what

would happen if this new model existed, and the subsidies for

environmentally based market incentives were placed highter than those

for the economic based market incentives(example, due to political wish).

In this scenario is reasonable to expect that environmental quality will

truely improve? What about per capita social wellbeing, it should be

expected to improve or to worsen?. Hence, based on the framework I

presented, if the only active element of the system is the economy,

whether you have subsidies or not, it does not matter to "sustainability",

but it matters to "sustainable development" because without subsidies

it would be harder to claim that a model is "sustainable".

Your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997 Geonomist@aol.com wrote:

> Carlos S. F. T.,

> Jeff S.

> Your report shows four subsidies - agriculture, water, transportation, and

> energy - being bad. What subsidies, if any, are good? Since all distort price

> and invite corruption, maybe the system itself of subsidization is flawed.

> With the economic values that society generates, perhaps we should collect

> and share them on a per capita basis - a broader, fuller version of the

> Alaska oil dividend. It'd empower people at the grassroots level to make

• economic choices. Could that be a model for sustainability?

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:43:27 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Lucio,

Jeff.

A market may seem to exploit because most governments defend property

"rights" (actually, "privileges") at the expense of environmental rights. The

latter may even be more basic. Lacking them, owners/producers may legally

kill others by legally polluting them. Trying to win politically, so to guide

subsidies greenly, may be less effective than merely cutting the pie

equitably. Say you want to subsidize rural electrification, then next year it

seems that a better way may have been solar ovens, pv panels, and dc

appliances - or maybe not, the example does not matter. The point is, trying

to make the decision centrally, rather then enabling (via an EarthShare or

citizens dividend) rural people to make the choice individually, commits

development to one direction that may not be the most sustainable.

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Jeff. I would like to ask you constructively two questions. Is

it not reasonable to expect that in the market where there are only economic

based incentives economic rights(previleges) will prevail? Have all the

environmental and social regulations enacted up to today to make for

"sustainable development" change the actual behavior of economic based

market forces?. It seems that a very basic implication of the model I

wrote( D = MA + mA + mB + mC ) has not been understood: Unless we

introduced environmentally based and socially based market incentives,

FREE TRADE WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE KING OF THE MARKET. You can see in

this model that more economic, social and environemtnal regulation may not

change anything in the long term.

I read today the posting of Ron Mader about the Brazilian position

with respect to opposing the links between free trade talks and the

environment and jobs(society). The position seems weak because it seems

to lack of a strong theoretical base and do not seem to have a way to

conteract FREE TRADE pressures. I believe that if the simple framework I

have posted is understood in detail, it could help to provide a strong

theoretical base to that possition and options to conteract FREE TRADE

pressures. I believe that all developing countries are facing the same

dilema.

Greetings to all;

Lucio

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 Geonomist@aol.com wrote:

> Lucio,

> Jeff.

> A market may seem to exploit because most governments defend property

> "rights" (actually, "privileges") at the expense of environmental rights. The

> latter may even be more basic. Lacking them, owners/producers may legally

> kill others by legally polluting them. Trying to win politically, so to guide

> subsidies greenly, may be less effective than merely cutting the pie

> equitably. Say you want to subsidize rural electrification, then next year it

> seems that a better way may have been solar ovens, pv panels, and dc

> appliances - or maybe not, the example does not matter. The point is, trying

> to make the decision centrally, rather then enabling (via an EarthShare or

> citizens dividend) rural people to make the choice individually, commits

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 15:17:48 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Dear all:

Everyone would agree that the foundation of the environmental, social, and

economic degradation is inappropriate human behavior (i.e., goal-seeking

behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

ideal-seeking behavior (based on the four ideals of Homonomy, Nurturance,

Humanity, and Beauty, [Emery, 1993]).

Unfortunately, ideal-seeking behavior is only possible within a

contextualistic environment (see Pepper's world hypotheses, 1943) and its

dispersive nature and unlimited scope. Hence, the need to transform our

"centralized mindset" (as Mitchel Resnick puts it) or bureaucratic,

dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

(ideal-seeking) ones.

Best regards,

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

Wandemberg

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Wandemberg, I would like you to take a closer look at what THE DP1

postulate of Dr. Emery says and then tell me if you believe that it is

consistent with the concept of "sustainability" and if you believe that

yes, please tell me why do you believe so.

I also would like to add that "irrationality" has its roots and

these "roots" are the real problem and these "roots" are the ones we have

been talking about. Moreover, "rationality" is a relative concept, what

is irrational for some is rational for others: cutting the trees is

irrational for environmentalist/ecologist, but it is not for others.

Therefore I do not think that everybody will agree with your statement.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> Dear all:

>

> Everyone would agree that the foundation of the environmental, social, and

> economic degradation is inappropriate human behavior (i.e., goal-seeking

> behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

> ideal-seeking behavior (based on the four ideals of Homonomy, Nurturance,

> Humanity, and Beauty, [Emery, 1993]).

>

> Unfortunately, ideal-seeking behavior is only possible within a

> contextualistic environment (see Pepper's world hypotheses, 1943) and its

> dispersive nature and unlimited scope. Hence, the need to transform our

> "centralized mindset" (as Mitchel Resnick puts it) or bureaucratic,

> dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

> (ideal-seeking) ones.

> Best regards,

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

• Wandemberg

Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:11:46 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Dear Toledo, DP1 is just the antithesis of sustainability. Either I failed

to make myself clear or you didn't read it carefully.

As for the "rationality" issue I agree with you. That's why it's so

important to maintain a contextualistic perspective, thus avoiding the

extreme positions of dogmatism and utter skepticism.

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

Wandemberg

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear Wandemberg, I would like you to take a closer look at what THE DP1

> postulate of Dr. Emery says and then tell me if you believe that it is

> consistent with the concept of "sustainability" and if you believe that

> yes, please tell me why do you believe so.

> I also would like to add that "irrationality" has its roots and

> these "roots" are the real problem and these "roots" are the ones we have

> been talking about. Moreover, "rationality" is a relative concept, what

> is irrational for some is rational for others: cutting the trees is

> irrational for environmentalist/ecologist, but it is not for others.

> Therefore I do not think that everybody will agree with your statement.

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> > Dear all:

> >

> > Everyone would agree that the foundation of the environmental, social, and

> > economic degradation is inappropriate human behavior (i.e., goal-seeking

> > behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

> > ideal-seeking behavior (based on the four ideals of Homonomy, Nurturance,

> > Humanity, and Beauty, [Emery, 1993]).

> >

> > Unfortunately, ideal-seeking behavior is only possible within a

> > contextualistic environment (see Pepper's world hypotheses, 1943) and its

> > dispersive nature and unlimited scope. Hence, the need to transform our

> > "centralized mindset" (as Mitchel Resnick puts it) or bureaucratic,

> > dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

> > (ideal-seeking) ones.

> > Best regards,

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

• > Wandemberg

Dear Wandenberg, I made a mistake: I typed PD1 instead of PD2. The

postulate PD2 is the one of Dr. Emary right?. Any way since you said that

DP1 is the antithesis of sustainability I deduced that according to you

PD2 is sustainability or consitent with sustainability. Again, in a

contructive way I will try to show you that what you think may not be

true: There are two more postulates that are missing from Dr. Emary

approach, including the one consistent with sustainability. To show that,

I will follow a similar simple approach as before to make a connection

between this discusion and my proposed framework of "sustainability":

The terminolgoy used will be similar for comparison purposes:

A= manager role is active

a= manager role is passive

B= participant role is active

b= participant role is passive

>From the logical combination of these characteristics we can developed the

following four theories:

1) theory Ab

This theory assumes that the manager role is active and the

participant role is passive. The participant will do what the manager

wants him to do and what ever the participant think will not affect the

decision of the manager. Familiar, this is the DP1 postulate that Dr.

Emary is trying to change, which by the way is the typical common top-down

approach: YOU NEED A BOSS FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK.

2) Theory aB

This theory assumes that the manager role is passive and that the

participant role is active. The manager will do what the participants

wants him to do and what ever the manager think will not affect the

decision-making process of the participant. The participants have control

of the "process". This is the DP2 postulate of Dr. Emary, where the feed

back from the manager(coordinator of the conference) is assumed not to

affect the "process"(due to "peripheral role"). This is a type of

Botton-up approach: YOU STILL NEED A COORDINATOR FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK.

3) Theory ab

This is the postulate I call "DP0" since both the role of the

manager and the role of the participant are passive. They are in their

own world: What the manager does does not affect what the participant does

or what the participant does does not affect what the manager does.

4) Theory AB

This is the other postulate missing, which I call DP3, where both

the manager and the participant have an active role: the decisions taken

by the manager reflect the concerns of the participants and what ever the

participants do is consistent with the concerns of the manager. This is

TRUE sustainabilidy, don't you think so Dear Wanderberg?: YOU NEED THE

ACTIVE INTERACTION OF THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM

In conclusion;

1) the postulate DP2 is the antithesis of the postulate DP1, but not of

sustainability since the postulate DP2 assumes that one element of the

system is passive: the coordinator or manager.

2) the postulate DP3 is consistent with "sustainability" and therefore, it

is consistent with the framework I have proposed.

3) the postulates DP1 and DP2 are consistent with the concept of

"sustainable development".

As always comments are welcome;

Greetings to all;

Lucio

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> Dear Toledo, DP1 is just the antithesis of sustainability. Either I failed

> to make myself clear or you didn't read it carefully.

>

> As for the "rationality" issue I agree with you. That's why it's so

> important to maintain a contextualistic perspective, thus avoiding the

> extreme positions of dogmatism and utter skepticism.

>

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

> Wandemberg |

> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> > Dear Wandemberg, I would like you to take a closer look at what THE DP1

> > postulate of Dr. Emery says and then tell me if you believe that it is

> > consistent with the concept of "sustainability" and if you believe that

> > yes, please tell me why do you believe so.

> > I also would like to add that "irrationality" has its roots and

> > these "roots" are the real problem and these "roots" are the ones we have

> > been talking about. Moreover, "rationality" is a relative concept, what

> > is irrational for some is rational for others: cutting the trees is

> > irrational for environmentalist/ecologist, but it is not for others.

> > Therefore I do not think that everybody will agree with your statement.

> > Greetings;

> > Lucio

> > On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> > > Dear all:

> > >

> > > Everyone would agree that the foundation of the environmental, social, and

> > > economic degradation is inappropriate human behavior (i.e., goal-seeking

> > > behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

> > > ideal-seeking behavior (based on the four ideals of Homonomy, Nurturance,

> > > Humanity, and Beauty, [Emery, 1993]).

> > >

> > > Unfortunately, ideal-seeking behavior is only possible within a

> > > contextualistic environment (see Pepper's world hypotheses, 1943) and its

> > > dispersive nature and unlimited scope. Hence, the need to transform our

> > > "centralized mindset" (as Mitchel Resnick puts it) or bureaucratic,

> > > dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

> > > (ideal-seeking) ones.

> > > Best regards,

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

• > > Wandemberg

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:08:31 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Estimado Lucio:

Again, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding on your part.

You seem to be confusing the Search Conference (SC) process with the

different characteristics of DP1 and DP2 structures since you talk about

a manager or "coordinator of the conference". In actuality, DP2

structures are based on the assumption that humans CAN be purposeful &

ideal-seeking in the RIGHT environment and thus do NOT need to have a

manager/supervisor as DP1 structures which assume that people are

incompetent. So, what you are calling DP3 may qualify as Dr. Emery's DP2

(with the corrections below). There is no need for reinventing DP2.

There are more than 50 years of applied research behind it.

Unfortunately, this is fairly new (~5 years?) here in

the US. I wonder why??? :)

Kind regards,

JC Wandemberg

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear Wandenberg, I made a mistake: I typed PD1 instead of PD2. The

> postulate PD2 is the one of Dr. Emary right?. Any way since you said that

> DP1 is the antithesis of sustainability I deduced that according to you

> PD2 is sustainability or consitent with sustainability. Again, in a

> contructive way I will try to show you that what you think may not be

> true: There are two more postulates that are missing from Dr. Emary

> approach, including the one consistent with sustainability. To show that,

> I will follow a similar simple approach as before to make a connection

> between this discusion and my proposed framework of "sustainability":

> The terminolgoy used will be similar for comparison purposes:

>

> A= manager role is active

> a= manager role is passive

> B= participant role is active

> b= participant role is passive

>

> >From the logical combination of these characteristics we can developed the

> following four theories:

> 1) theory Ab

> This theory assumes that the manager role is active and the

> participant role is passive. The participant will do what the manager

> wants him to do and what ever the participant think will not affect the

> decision of the manager. Familiar, this is the DP1 postulate that Dr.

> Emary is trying to change, which by the way is the typical common top-down

> approach: YOU NEED A BOSS FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK.

>

> 2) Theory aB

> This theory assumes that the manager role is passive and that the

> participant role is active. The manager will do what the participants

> wants him to do and what ever the manager think will not affect the

> decision-making process of the participant. The participants have control

> of the "process". This is the DP2 postulate of Dr. Emary, where the feed

> back from the manager(coordinator of the conference) is assumed not to

> affect the "process"(due to "peripheral role"). This is a type of

> Botton-up approach: YOU STILL NEED A COORDINATOR FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK.

WRONG: THE SYSTEM IS SELF-MANAGING (BUT NOT AUTONOMOUS)

> 3) Theory ab

> This is the postulate I call "DP0" since both the role of the

> manager and the role of the participant are passive. They are in their

> own world: What the manager does does not affect what the participant does

> or what the participant does does not affect what the manager does.

>

> 4) Theory AB

> This is the other postulate missing, which I call DP3, where both

> the manager and the participant have an active role: the decisions taken

> by the manager reflect the concerns of the participants and what ever the

> participants do is consistent with the concerns of the manager. This is

> TRUE sustainabilidy, don't you think so Dear Wanderberg?: YOU NEED THE

> ACTIVE INTERACTION OF THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM

WRONG!!!!!!!! YOU NEED THE ACTIVE INTERACTION OF *ALL* THE ELEMENTS OF THE

SYSTEM. THIS IS DP2.

> In conclusion;

> 1) the postulate DP2 is the antithesis of the postulate DP1, but not of

> sustainability since the postulate DP2 assumes that one element of the

> system is passive: the coordinator or manager.

> 2) the postulate DP3 is consistent with "sustainability" and therefore, it

> is consistent with the framework I have proposed.

> 3) the postulates DP1 and DP2 are consistent with the concept of

> "sustainable development".

> As always comments are welcome;

> Greetings to all;

> Lucio

> On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> > Dear Toledo, DP1 is just the antithesis of sustainability. Either I failed

> > to make myself clear or you didn't read it carefully.

> >

> > As for the "rationality" issue I agree with you. That's why it's so

> > important to maintain a contextualistic perspective, thus avoiding the

> > extreme positions of dogmatism and utter skepticism.

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

> > Wandemberg |

> > On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Wandemberg, I would like you to take a closer look at what THE DP1

> > > postulate of Dr. Emery says and then tell me if you believe that it is

> > > consistent with the concept of "sustainability" and if you believe that

> > > yes, please tell me why do you believe so.

> > > I also would like to add that "irrationality" has its roots and

> > > these "roots" are the real problem and these "roots" are the ones we have

> > > been talking about. Moreover, "rationality" is a relative concept, what

> > > is irrational for some is rational for others: cutting the trees is

> > > irrational for environmentalist/ecologist, but it is not for others.

> > > Therefore I do not think that everybody will agree with your statement.

> > > Greetings;

> > > Lucio

> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear all:

> > > >

> > > > Everyone would agree that the foundation of the environmental, social,

and

> > > > economic degradation is inappropriate human behavior (i.e., goal-seeking

> > > > behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

> > > > ideal-seeking behavior (based on the four ideals of Homonomy,

Nurturance,

> > > > Humanity, and Beauty, [Emery, 1993]).

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately, ideal-seeking behavior is only possible within a

> > > > contextualistic environment (see Pepper's world hypotheses, 1943) and

its

> > > > dispersive nature and unlimited scope. Hence, the need to transform our

> > > > "centralized mindset" (as Mitchel Resnick puts it) or bureaucratic,

> > > > dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

> > > > (ideal-seeking) ones.

> > > > Best regards,

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

• > > > Wandemberg

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:28:16 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

Estimado Lucio:

The search conference (SC) is the first part of a two-satge methodology

to help organizations, individuals, etc. determine their desirable and

achievable future (first part). The second part, namely, how should one

organize her/himself to achieve the desired future is part of the

Participative Design Workshop (PDW).

The role of the SC & PDW manager is to control the time, process, and

environment, NOT the content, for the content is up to the participants

who will have to live with the consequences.

I understand your confusion since, quite unfortunately, that book you

refered to (Emery & Purser) did not do a good job. You may want to stick

with Merrely Emery's (Ed) Participative Design for Participative Democracy

(1993)

I have no doubt that eventually (during the next millenium) DP2 structures

may become anachronic just as much as DP1 structures are right now.

YOU ASK:

> the pages I listed and tell me if there is a need or not for a search

> conference manager for the approach to work.

ANSWER:

If the people doing a SC and/or PDW are knowledgeable of the design

principles involved and are cognizant of the theories behind them (e.g.,

ecological learning, open systems, directive correlations models, etc.)

then, there is NO need for a manager.

YOU ASK:

>Also tell me if it is

> assumend or not that the impact of the presence of the manager of the

> search conference on the behavior of the participant will be marginal

> and minimize throught cummulated experience. "There is not

> misunderstanding at all": you need a manager and you need to assume that

> when the conference manager is "resolving" deadlocks he has no effect on

> the behaviors of the elements of the deadlocks.

ANSWER: Again, the SC manager's job is to manage the process NOT its

content. In addition, conflicts are NOT resolved but RATIONALIZED! (big

difference).

Atentos saludos,

Juan Carlos W.

Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:58:53 -0700 (PDT)

Toledo/Lucio Munoz (munoz@unixg.ubc.ca)

Dear Wanderberg, it seems from the above that your clear cut answers

to my questions are that yes you need a conference manager and that yes it

is assumed that his presence has no "influence". Therefore I stick to my

comments since I do not think that the 1996 book is wrong.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:

> The role of the SC & PDW manager is to control the time, process, and

> environment, NOT the content, for the content is up to the participants

> who will have to live with the consequences.

.....You are assuming that the presence of the SC & PDW manager does not

influence the behaviour of the participants. It may, specially when

helping "por ejemplo campesinos analfabetos" in less developed countries

who are weary and worry about the "Ingeniero/Maestro" trying to help them.

> ANSWER: Again, the SC manager's job is to manage the process NOT its

> content. In addition, conflicts are NOT resolved but RATIONALIZED! (big

> difference).

....You are reafirming your assumption of "not influence"

>

> Atentos saludos,

>