TALKBACK 1997 : October-December

Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:50:17 -0400 (EDT)

Geonomist

Lucio,

Jeff.

As for leaving out environmental values or rights from markets, some

historians say they were there once. For instance, at the dawn of the

Industrial Revolution when Londoners complained about the smoke from the new

coal-burning factories, they asked to have them relocated downwind (ancient

NIMBY). They sought and assumed they would receive redress from the royal

courts on the legal ground that people are entitled to clean air. Instead,

the response of the legal system was to extend limited liabilty to factory

owners, creating limiteds in the UK and later corporations in the US. The

problem was, and is, the partnership between elite and state. The solution

was, and is, a network among people sufficient to establish alternatives

economies. Eh?

Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:55:18 -0600 (CST)

Barkin

Dear ELANers-

I would like to offer a contribution to the discussion on Sustainable

Development. Our recent discussion ranged quite wide including the

exploration of the Costa Rican experiment with Carbon Sequestration Bonds.

In part, this contribution is informed by a recent opportunity to attend a

seminar on "Business Responsibility for Environmental Protection" in

Costa Rica, where some of these issues were dealt with in great detail. I

apologize for a somewhat longer contribution than normal (1000 words), but

I hope that many of you will agree that the serious nature of the issue

merits careful consideration, including a peek into the direction of

solutions.

It is clear that the substantial difference between environmental

protection (EP) and sustainable development (SD) is one of the most

difficult areas in which to communicate a popular understanding. Put

simply, SD goes beyond EP to incorporate the ability of the "system" to

generate productive opportunities for ALL segments of society, while

allowing each to protect its own unique heritage and in this way

contribute to make the whole society better able to escape from its

dependency on a single product or market; this must explicitly recognize

the INability of the corporate structure to undertake many of the tasks of

environmental management. Many of the problems of dealing with waste

streams must involve a reconsideration of the way in which "common

property" resource problems (water, air, garbage, etc.) are generated and

appropriated; the dominant corporate approach to the solution of these

problems involves investment in technological `fixes' to neutralize or

transform the wastes and the n deposit them out of the way when they

cannot be recycled. Sustainability involves a different point of

departure, since it must realistically accept that the existing (global)

system is unwilling and INCAPABLE of responsibly integrating all people's

into its fold, and therefore must focus on protecting and stimulating

local capability for AUTONOMOUS development, a pattern that at one and the

same time must promote a greater ability for local self-sufficiency

together with a growing capacity to de velop products for trading, under

terms that allow privileged market conditions. (I have explored this at

great length in my essay "Wealth, Poverty and Sustainable Development,"

available in the ELAN archives on this listserve.)

The issue of carbon sequestration is an interesting and complex example of

this search for sustainability. To what extent does this new instrument

allow for local development and to what extent does the commitment of

these resources to serve as a sink for northern trash preclude a more

diversified productive structure? In the best of cases, forests being

protected to offset northern contamination will not be available for

accommodating the needs for local products or for generating employment.

The Costa Rica experience apparently allows the communities to invest the

proceeds from such sales in alternative productive activities,

facilitating the consolidation of an alternative socio-economic and

productive structure; it remains to be see whether this opportunity

becomes a reality for the communities and individuals. The Costa Rican

experience which prices this at $10/ton for a 5 year contract, contrasts

with a price for similar services of $0.50 in Bolivia and a privatization

of resources in Guatemala that forces people off the land. In any case,

the issue clearly shows the complexity of seemingly simple innovation and

the obvious need for more concerted collaborated efforts, if the

destructive qualities of a competitive market do not transform this

product into a new element of northern control over southern resources.

The claim of a greater concern for and movement towards sustainability,

however, inspires skepticism. Throughout the third world we are reading

of serious and intractable problems occasioned by new productive

investments even in this era of increased s ensitivity and regulation. Our

coastlines are being decimated by the rapid extension of shrimp

cultivation, plantation production of trees and of agricultural products

are demanding more agrochemicals and massive reconformation of the

topography to permit mechanical servicing (cultivation, irrigation,

harvesting) and vehicular access.

Concentrated industrial development offers another set of problems. Not

only is it centralized in the hands of a small number of very wealthy

people and corporations, but it is also geographically centralized in

specific regions where a combination of natural endowments, physical

infrastructure, and/or financial incentives create extraordinary

opportunities for private gain at the expense of workers and the planet.

The world's burgeoning urban-industrial infernos are but one category of

such a develo pment, deliberately encouraged by ill-considered legislation

proposed by policy-makers seemingly incapable of considering the greater

national or global interests instead of the venal demands of local

magnates and their international partners, insensitive to the effects of

the poisonous cauldron of toxics spewed into the air, water, and landfills

in which some of them actually chose to live and work: the maquiladora

industry on the Mexican-US border is one such example, having generated a

nightmare of environmental and social problems in at least a dozen cities

in both countries.

These developments reflect the way in which most capital impacts our

societies in the third world. Even worse, however, is the seemingly

unending litany of horror stories about the destruction of peasant and

indigenous peoples and their communities throughout the world, as

powerful corporate and military forces seek to extend their power and

control over natural and human resources for private gain at the expense

of the common interest. Any serious consideration of the theme of

sustainable development requires a recognition of the significance of

these developments.

Once enunciated, it is obvious that it is precisely these people in the

third world --those who have chosen to shout: "Stop the world, I want to

get off!"-- who offer an important source of inspiration, resources, and

knowledge to create the alternatives that we will all need as the

globalized system and the part of the planet that it is poisoning is

plunged into crisis sometime in the not too distant future. Can the

models of local development, based on autonomous management of resources,

and deliberate but partial integration into the world market economy,

help us escape from the confines of the globalized society? This is the

challenge and promise of those of us working to design strategies of

sustainability and the reason why most of our work is with indigenous and

peasant societies in the third world.

Barkin

Thu, 02 Oct 1997 12:17:16 -0800

Bud

I appreciate David Barkin's comments on current trends in sustainable

development (SD) and wish to offer a couple of reflections. First, a

strong "yes" to David's reminding us that SD not only is different from

environmental protection (EP) but can be harmed by it. Costa Rica is a

classic case where (relative) success on EP has come at a high cost to SD.

(I'll be glad to unpack that, should anyone ask.)

What I most miss in David's essay -- to ir al grano -- is the

role of northern consumers and the possibilities for creative alliances

between those consumers and the campesino and indigenous peoples who, in

Barkin's estimate, seek "partial integration into the world market

economy."

From the tone of his essay, I infer that David's solution is

heavy on the autonomy of the indigenous and campesinos. "Stop the world, I

want to get off!" is the phrase he puts in their mouths. David may be

right, but let's not underestimate the numbers of such peoples who want

"on" nor -- and this is really important -- let's not underestimate their

creativity in getting "on" while maintaining other values that are

important to them. The choice is theirs. Enhancing their choices is our

task.

This is precisely why I have been pushing possibilities inherent

in the trade and consumption of alternative coffees (organic, fair-traded,

enviro-friendly). Here's an important commodity that indigenous and

campesinos can grow healthily and sell profitably -- IF good links are

forged with consumers in the north. This is not so far-fetched an idea.

Such alternative coffees are routinely sold in supermarkets in Europe.

Keep in mind the impact that U.S. consumers had on tuna fishing techniques

and "rainforest" hamburger.

Of course coffee is but one commodity and it has its unique

aspects. It is only --only? -- one strategic opportunity for developing

the kinds of consumer-grower linkages that might, just might, counter the

oppressive weight of the "magnates," "corporations" and "policy-makers"

that David rightly decries.

Here I depart from addressing David's essay to addressing the list

in general. Maybe it's a question of theory and praxis and of the relative

emphasis we individually choose to give one or the other. But after the

bath of theorizing that's been happening recently on this list, I for one

would welcome more input from praxis. As Marx well understood, a good way

to understand how the world works is to try to change it.

Thanks and best wishes, Bud/Eldon

Fri, 03 Oct 1997 11:54:39 -0400

James

To: ELAN Discussioners

I have, as have others, communicated privately with some of the more

frequent users of

this site who engage in sometimes 'light chat'. It seems to be to no

avail. [One of the most frequent contributors to the ongoing

'discussion' posted a note a few days ago of which the entire text was:

"Certainly." He used a couple of K just to post the one word. The irony

is that the broader discussion concerned, among other things, means of

allocating resources.]

As in the wasteful use of all resources, the use of this site must be

dealt with by personal judgement and self-restraint. I urge that the

participants reflect on the differnce between what belongs in a

'discussion' and what belongs in a 'chat room'.

Where appropriate, the latter should be considered as an alternative to

use of the collective resources of the members of this network.

Jim

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:43:37 -0600 (MDT)

WANDEMBERG

To reasonably frame ANY discussion I consider important to keep in mind

Stephen Pepper's World Hypotheses. In short, we should not only try to

avoid extreme positions such as "dogmatism" and "utter skepticism" but

also those views which are too "analytical" and "integrative" and thus

that sacrifice "scope" for the sake of "precision", e.g., mechanistic &

organistic views.

Given the increasing relevant uncertainties and system discontinuities of

our Type IV (turbulent) environment (Emery & Trist) only a

"contextualistic" approach (i.e., one based on open systems theory,

ecological learning and directive correlation) provides the best means for

constructive dialog and positive outcomes thus sparing us ALL from plenty

of hardship.

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:07:14 -0400 (EDT)

BCamp689

Dear JC

It is just this kind of subject-less mish mash that previous messages are

trying to discourage. Please listen!!

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:44:40 -0700 (PDT)

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

Dear friends, it seems that once I tried to make the connection between

sustainability and the market/economics people got offended, instead of

presenting and supporting their views. I tried many times to focus the

attention on "types of market incentives", "allocation of resources",

"motivations:selfish/altruistic behavior" and "competing views" and

to show how they relate to sustainable development/sustainability, but

discussion was avoided. Now, Mr. Bass says it all: "the irony is that the

broader discussion concerns among other things means of allocating

resources". Yes, this is the core of the discussion, and when talking

about "allocating resources" we are talking about "Microeconomics" and

about one of its areas of study "the market". The main goal is to

efficiently allocate resources among competing ends. In the current model

"competing ends" refers only to "selfish competing ends" motivated by

economic based market incentives only. This is the "only invisible hand"

in the market. My argument has been that this is consistent with

"sustainable development", not with "sustainability". Why,

because if we add "non-economic based market incentives" then there could

be "more than one invisible hand" in the same market competing for the

same resources and the consequence of that "new model" are yet to be

documented. Hence, current microeconomic theory may not be appropriate to

deal with a different problem as it has been shown too that

Macro-economics approaches had to be made "green" too. I am very sorry if

I have made some of you uncomfortable and I am sending you my most sincere

apologies for the precious time I took from you, but remember "static

knowledge" may not hold on forever.

Until next time;

Lucio

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, James Bass wrote:

>The irony is that the broader discussion concerned, among other things,

>means of allocating resources.]

>

> Jim

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:56:47 -0600

John

On 3 Oct 97 at 10:44, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear friends, it seems that once I tried to make the connection

> between sustainability and the market/economics people got offended,

> instead of presenting and supporting their views.

Lucio,

I think you have to understand that you are dealing with

academics who, aside from making announcements or calls for help

in research, are oftentimes more interested in conforming

communiques to standardized themes and appearances rather than

either the content or would-be content of their communiques.

This, of course, does not include all of them, though there is

enough, and certainly enough who will jump when the bugle sounds.

As someone had, so scientifically, deduced: there is a difference

between discussion and chat. I think the word 'gossip' was used

as well. While the contention between so-called 'hard' science

and 'soft' science, deduction and adduction, has always been

recurrent within academic maillists, it comes as a surprise that

a maillist dedicated to such a young science as environmentalism

would harbor such demanding conformists, much less, anyone who

would be so arrogant to call for the dismissal of any discussion

according to either one's own set of value judgements, or the

presumption that the same value judgements would, or should be,

in the majority. He must think this list, or any public list,

must conform to the standards of an oppresive classroom.

Perhaps the concerns for sustainable tourism/production do not

belong here, rather than just a list such as Green-Travel. It

has been my experience there that its academics do not conform

their subject material to their modes of study, rather than the

other way around.

In any event, the mere call for any topic or its treatment to be

disallowed from a maillist when anyone can use a delete key, or

set their mail filters to delete unwanted material is an affront

to all good sense and justice. If 'resources' are limited, and I

don't mean the 'collective' resources of the subscribers who

waived the right to demand just what kind of mail they will allow

in their mailboxes upon subscribing to a publically open

maillist, is resolvable. If colordo.edu is short of on-line disk

space, I for one, can contribute some. If only people would

think more about what 'could' be done, than what supposedly

'must' be done.

Meantime, don't let the bugle blowers get you down.

Best Regards,

John

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:27:21 -0600

John

By coincidence (I suspect) there's a lively discussion on

sustainability going on at Green-Travel. You (plural) may

take interest in this little snippet:

"The paper "Is ecotourism sustainable?", Journal of Environmental

Management, 21, 4, 1997, 483-491 may be of interest with respect to

definitions of sustainability."

Keeping a staunch finger,

John

Fri, 03 Oct 1997 13:10:04 -0800

Bud

Lucio, I'm a bit exasperated by your latest response to me, which like some

of yours to other members of this list seems unnecessarily polarizing.

Nowhere in my comment on Barkin's essay did I suggest a "separation"

between theory and practice, much less consigning practice to the

"developing countries" and theory to the "developed countries." Dios mio!

What I did do is raise a question about the "relative emphasis" given

"theory and praxis" in recent discussions on this list. I referenced Karl

Marx precisely because Marx understood the JOINING of theory and practice.

His theorizing reflected "current events" (e.g., Paris 1871) without

neglecting the sweep of history.

Theory and practice need to inform each other at all levels and at

all times, and to cross levels of analysis and epistemologies. On that I

think you and I and many members of this list agree. Intellectuals need to

listen to campesinos, for example, and to incorporate their vernacular

knowledge into what you refer to as our "scientific" knowledge. (Tengo

mis dudas sobre una ciencia de desarrollo, pero no importa.)

I worry about intellectuals, north and south, who seem to have a

stake in this NOT happening, in there NOT being creative (and thus

confusing) openings and alliances in the world, in there NOT being a

continual flow of ideas across levels of analysis and epistemologies. To

such folks I recommend Robert Chambers' WHOSE REALITY COUNTS? (published in

the UK, 1997), since it documents the new understandings of, and practices

surrounding, "sustainable development" that are daily being generated by

people focused on local problems who nonetheless converse theoretically

across the barriers I've just mentioned. Yes, this is still a minority

phenomenon, but it demonstrates a potential that I for one wish to support

in whatever small way I can. That strikes me as more creative

intellectually not to mention poliically than decrying the monopoly which

this or that northern institutional matrix or paradigm has us locked into.

I recall the days when intellectuals north and south exhausted

themselves debating the finer points of "dependency" theory only to wake up

one day and find that virtually nobody considered "dependency" relevant any

more. Let's not repeat that experience with "sustainable development."

By keeping theorizing in interaction with practice and by not taking

ourselves too seriously when we use our theory voices, perhaps we can avoid

repeating that fate, which was the fate of intellectuals (I repeat) north

and south.

I hope that my words won't be read as an attempt to silence anyone or

to shut down any line of discussion. I hope that they will be read only

as the heart-felt response of one who spent too much of his life in the

semantic eddies of theoretical debates on development -- and worse,

subjected his students to same.

Pura vida, amigos. Wake up and smell the coffee! Bud

Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:40:32 -0700

Philip

Dear friends,

I am a staunch proponent of lively dialog. However, too many of you

mistakenly believe that everyone on the mailing list is interested in your

private bantering.

It is true that I can exercise my free right to the delete key. But should

I have to be deleting dozens of messages every day just so I can stay

informed about things of more general interests?

Mr. Kenworthy,-- you addressed your comment to Lucio, but you sent it to

the world. Is there no irony in this? Why can't you reply to him-- and

not to the world? I will drop listserver membership if this pattern does

not change. I haven't the time to be deleting zillions of messages.

Philip

Fri, 03 Oct 1997 20:47:15 -0400 (EDT)

Haynes

Dear Colleagues:

As seems to be true for a number of you have already, I have also grown

weary of having to peruse the chatter of a couple of graduate students on

this list who seem to have a lot of time on their hands (I get the digest

form and so cannot conveniently delete uninteresting messages). I guess

their profs do not keep them sufficiently occupied. As occurred with the

Ecological Economics list, a few of the clueless with respect to netiquette

ruin it for the many. My direct communication with one of the offenders

resulted in this juvenile response:

Dear Dr. Goddard. I follow a simple rule. If you send a message to me

through the list, I answer to the list. If you send a message to me

directly I answer to you directly. That is what I was advised to do.

And that is what I will do.

I no longer subscribe to the Ecological Economics list, and now I shall

take myself off of this one. These lists are a good object lesson in the

value of editors, who, although they anger us when our wonderful thoughts

are rejected for publication, nonetheless perform a very useful social

function. I have communicated with David Barkin twice on the topic of these

two students, with no reply from him.

Perhaps I will have the pleasure of meeting some of you one day.

Best wishes, Haynes

Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:32:45 -0500 (GMT)

Carlos Guillermo

I'd rather write in Spanish to express more clearly my ideas.

Sin duda vale la pena emplear con mesura los recursos finitos de la red y

del sitio de discusion.

Ahora bien, no me parece razonable literalmente amenazar a ELAN con el

retiro de un suscriptor o "activista" porque se efectuen discusiones sobre

temas "esotericos" como Glenn estima.

Aunque soy economista heterodoxo debe escuchar a mis colegas ortodoxos

para, en primer lugar, discutir con ellos y, en segundo lugar, enterarme

del estado de la discusion y del progreso cientifico.

Me alindero en la escuela de la Economia Ecologica en la cual estimamos

que es INDISPENSABLE el dialogo entre las disciplinas y justamente por eso

estoy en esta lista; a mi me interesa los desarrollos en la economia

subjetivista relacionados con la mirada al desarrollo sostenible aunque

parezcan (o realmente sean esotericos); tambien me interesan las

reflexiones de los biologos y los antropologos, aunque con frecuencia lo

confieso, no estan a mi alcance o no los incorpore en mi reflexion sobre

la economia energetica, que es mi especialidad.

En fin, creo en la "cienti-diversidad" para mirar nuestro entorno y

nuestra sociedad.

p.s. Yo tambien empleo la tecla "del" y limio el buzon.

Cordial saludo

Carlos Guillermo

Sun, 5 Oct 1997 14:12:19 -0700 (PDT)

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

Dear friends. I am the student Dr. Goddard refers. This is the second

time I see him getting angry to people critizising the working of the

current economic development model. He was doing the same thing in

RESECON when they were critizing there "the assumption of continuous

growth" and they were calling for alternatives. I did not know that you

need to have a Ph.D. to have common sense. This seems to be the case

in Dr. Goddard world?. Are you teaching your students to think or to

follow you?. I would have been happy to hear your "professional opinion"

on the subject, but maybe one day right.

"You sent the message through the list and answer through the list."

Take care.

Lucio

On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Haynes wrote:

>My direct communication with one of the offenders

> resulted in this juvenile response:

> Dear Dr. Goddard. I follow a simple rule. If you send a message to me

> through the list, I answer to the list. If you send a message to me

> directly I answer to you directly. That is what I was advised to do.

> And that is what I will do.

>

> Perhaps I will have the pleasure of meeting some of you one day.

>

> Best wishes, Haynes

Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:52:22 -0400

Verastegui

Hello ELAN members,

I wish to reply Jeff's comments:

QUOTE: "In the past, every advance in ag science also raised

land value, widening the

gulf between haves and havenots, making more landless, pouring

refugees into

cities. Is that good for peasants? No, can't be. Not until every

increase in

land value is directed to all residents can new ag tech help

campesinos." UNQUOTE.

I agree with these concerns but I disagree on the source of the above

indicated problems. Campesinos' conditions of life are not there

forever, as it was not the case for peasants in developed countries 200

years ago at the beginning of the industrial revolution, or even at the

beginning of the green revolution. Some developing countries (e.g.

Cuba), have profoundly transformed the status of campesinos through land

reform, education, investment, science and technology. In developing

countries the social problem of campesinos will remain unsolved so far

the inequities derived from undemocratic socio-political structures are

not changed, starting from the fair use of land. We are talking about

land ownership reform, roads, education, access to credits and technical

assistance (e.g. agri-food biotechnologies adapted to their local

conditions). It belongs to campesinos and voters to enforce sustainable

political decisions from their own governments.

Meanwhile, biotechnology development is unstoppable, as human

creativity. Indeed, the world population is expected to double by the

year 2030 to 12 billion and there is not any other way to increase food

production to keep pace with population growth. The question is how

best to feed billions of additional people without destroying much of

the planet by the excessive use of fossil fuels, agri-chemicals and

marginal lands. We believe that developing countries have interest to

look forward and try to get ready for taking advantage of this new

technological revolution. Indeed, biotechnology has the potential to

increase food production, reduce the dependency of agriculture on

chemicals, lower the cost of raw materials, and reduce the negative

environmental impacts associated with conventional production methods

(biofertizers, biopesticides, transgenic plants, etc).

This implies not only technology transfer and commercialization, but

also the creation of national policies and regulatory systems to take

care of environmental and social concerns, to raise public awareness and

education, to train senior researchers and entrepreneurs on how to

manage innovation in biotechnology, to promote sound policies for local

R&D planning, as well as to promote strategic alliances, joint ventures

& co-investment with more advanced firms/institutions in order to share

knowledge and markets. CamBioTec, a Canadian-sponsored initiative, is a

network of 6 focal point institutions working on all these aspects with

the mission to promote the sustainable development of commercial

biotechnology in 5 Latin American countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia,

Cuba and Mexico. The idea is to help them make better use of their

scarce human and economic resources, and take advantage of opportunities

for biotechnology appropriation through strategic alliances with

Canadian and Latin American centres and firms. More information about

CamBioTec can be found on CIB's website (see below)

Verastegui

Sat, 1 Nov 1997 18:24:37 -0800 (PST)

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

Aren't we asking the wrong question?. Rational expectations would be a

simple explanation to why NGOs(corporations or fundations) put(collect)

their money to finance projects in Latino America. The questions should

be whether or not the roles of NGOs in latino america has made easier or

more difficulty the path toward sustainability. The need for NGOs arose

because it was thought that government beaurocracies were too inefective

reaching the needed, but are NGOs more effective than government

institutions all the time?. Are projects designed by fundations and

corporations more consistent with local realities than projects designed

by government officials?. Neil Byron(CIFOR 1997) just published a

reviewed of 50 years of forestry projects in order to determined why they

have failed and he concluded that faulty designed is the cause of failure:

PROJECTS DO NOT REFLECT LOCAL REALITIES AND NEEDS so those that

those who control de process are at fall(donors, national governments,

consulting companies). Part of the problem he suggest is that government

beaurocracies are inefective indicating that this is the reason why NGOs

are better than government beurocracies in reaching the needed target

groups. As most people have mentioned in this discussion corporations and

fundations may be bound by the same faulty design as donor projects,

whether by choice or lack of choice.

In my study in central america I found some evidence that

perceptions can serve as reference to indicate this possibility and that

the sustainability goals of governments and NGOs may be in contradiction

with each others, yet all of them prevail under the unbrella of

"sustainable development".

Proving that the coming of NGOs with the environmental crises

has made it more difficult to move toward sustainability may not be

difficult, but to me that is not as important as to answer the question,

how can we improve the efficiency of the interaction of government and

NGOs officials so that the needed gets more and the local system get more

sustainable and the question of how the "accepted" faulty design could be

fixed again for the betterness of the target groups?.

Your comments are welcome.

Greetings from Vancouver.

Lucio

On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Ronald Nigh wrote:

> Dear Kees,

>

> A study of the social and environmental impact on Latin America of US

> conservation organizations and the foundations and corporations that

> finance them is something important waiting to be done. Do you suppose we

> could talk a foundation into supporting such a study?

. .

. .

> people working in Latin America. A study would have to interview these

> people as well as those who have found themselves hindered by big

> conservation policies.

>

> I think JCW hit it on the head. The "evil" comes from faulty design.

. .

. .

> whatever the "external" costs. Environmental organizations' job is stand

> in their way, pressure government to do its job of controlling corporate

> excesses. But since these organizations now depend on corporate dollars

> (directly or filtered through foundations) they have backed off. They

> probably need to be scrapped, but the important thing is who is going to do

> their job?

>

> Ronald

Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:49:26 -0700 (MST)

Wandemberg

Human behaviors and factors (e.g., values, institutions, policies)

that influence and motivate those behaviors are central to any

understanding and mitigation/elimination of negative externalities. With

pathological exceptions, people do not set out with overt intention to

damage the natural/human environment. The behaviors that result in

negative externalities seem more appropriately attributable to the

structure of the social/institutional environment in which these

(goal-seeking) behaviors take place. A review of the literature on

development outcomes correlates project effectiveness (success in meeting

project objectives) when project structure incorporates a particular

(ideal-seeking) type of beneficiary participation in design and

implementation. The same literature associates negative outcomes (failure

to meet project objectives, misallocation of resources and externalities)

when other (goal-seeking) types of beneficiary participation are

incorporated.

Research has shown that all organizations (formal or informal)

make a conscious or unconscious choice between two organizational

structures i.e., bureaucratic and participative democratic (there is also

the choice of laissez faire, but this is a non-structure). The effects of

this choice on individual behaviors (goal-seeking vs. ideal-seeking) and

the environmental management implications thereof are profoundly

different. The hypothesis presented here states that project performance

and outcome sustainability can be addressed (Pareto optimally) through

conscious attention to the design principles of the organizational

structure of the acting human system - specifically, a participative

democratic organizational structure will encourage project efficiency and

outcome sustainability through ideal-seeking behavior. While bureaucratic

structures (regardless of their design) foster a well-known series of

pathological disorders through goal-seeking behavior which translate into

less than optimal performance and unsustainable outcomes.

Keywords: Design Principles, Economic Development, Externalities, Project

Efficiency, Participation, Sustainable Outcomes.

(C) All rights reserved

Mon, 3 Nov 1997 10:05:37 -0800 (PST)

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

My posting referred to the need to know whether or not the coming

of NGOs as a result of the supposed inefficiency of "top-down" government

structures in delivering services to target groups has made the path

toward sustainability easier or not. Your posting does not seem to have

direct relationship with the above and orginal discussion about the "role

of NGOs in latino america". However, It can be proven that 1) top-down

approaches are sufficient, but not necessary for sustainable development

to take place; 2) bottom-up approaches are also sufficient, but no

necessary for sustainable development to take place; and that 3) the

interaction/melting of top-down and bottom-up approaches are necessary

and sufficient for "sustainability" to take place(sustainability = strong

sustainable development). The above could/can also be explained

by looking at human/group behavior, whether they have practical or ideal

goals. Moreover, the above could be used to explain that the exponential

increased in NGOs in latino america(central america)since the 1980s does

not necesarily leads to a development position closer to sustainability

at the local level as compared to the situation before their coming or

does not necesarly means an easier transition toward sustainability.

I wish others participate in this discussion if not it will be

taken/made as a personal discussion again.

Greetings to all;

Lucio

On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, JC Wandemberg wrote:

>

> Human behaviors and factors (e.g., values, institutions, policies)

> that influence and motivate those behaviors are central to any

> understanding and mitigation/elimination of negative externalities. With

......

......

......

> structure of the acting human system - specifically, a participative

> democratic organizational structure will encourage project efficiency and

> outcome sustainability through ideal-seeking behavior. While bureaucratic

> structures (regardless of their design) foster a well-known series of

> pathological disorders through goal-seeking behavior which translate into

> less than optimal performance and unsustainable outcomes.

>

> Keywords: Design Principles, Economic Development, Externalities, Project

> Efficiency, Participation, Sustainable Outcomes.

> (C) All rights reserved

Mon, 3 Nov 1997 16:08:23 -0700 (MST)

Serge

Dear Elaneros:

Can we ensure that private dialogues between elaners be kept away from the

ELAN list. We really don't need to start this all over again.

Lucio--you have been asked by all your colleagues to please be courteous

in this respect. So far you have refrained from displaying any common

courtesy to your fellow elaneros. I hope you can learn some common

netiquet.

Serge

Mon, 3 Nov 1997 16:21:12 -0700 (MST)

Wandemberg

On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Serge wrote:

> Can we ensure that private dialogues between elaners be kept away from the

> ELAN list. We really don't need to start this all over again.

snip>

> And no this is not an attempt by an employee of a multinational NGO to

> silence discussion etc. This is not a conspiracy.

And yet, this is precisely what you are doing ;=)

Wandemberg

Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:29:28 -0800 (PST)

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

I just sent this e-mail to Mr. Barking without realizing that I was not

sending copy to ELAN. This may be my last message.

Lucio

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

Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:23:46 -0800 (PST)

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

To: Barkin David -CE <barkin@servidor.unam.mx>

Cc: timmon@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu

Subject: This is not fair and too much

Dear Friends, specially Latino Americans. It seems that

everything I post bothers some people in this list and they are trying to

use anything they can find to stop my right to participate as a member of

this list and violate the freedom of ideas. Are not these principles

part of the code of ethic of this list?.

Mr. Barkin told me before not to post the full original

message in my replies, if you check my postings after I was advised to do

that I have complied: I have just posted the segments of the original

posting relevant to my reply to provide the context, AND YET STILL THERE

SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM.

Everybody else seemed to post the original message back without

being reprimanded, which can be easily established by checking

their previous postings. Unbelievable.

I ONLY WITHDREW VOLUNTARY FROM A LIST WHEN I MADE A MISTAKE. I

USUALLY SAY THAT I AM SORRY FOR ANY MISTAKE MADE AND THEN I WITHDREW.

THIS TIME, I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG. SINCE I CAN NOT WITHDRAW

VOLUNTARILY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I BEG MR. BARKIN TO TAKE ME OFF THE

LIST SO HAPPINESS FOR THOSE OPPOSED TO DIFFERENT IDEAS COMES BACK.

PLEASE, DO IT RIGHT AWAY.

"Lo que esta a la vista no necesita anteojos".

My best wishes to all and until next time.

Sincerely;

Lucio

Sorry for posting your full short original message!

On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Barkin David -CE wrote:

> I ask you once again to be respectful of our diverse membership. PLEASE

> DO NOT ADD THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO YOUR REPLIES. This involves

> significant volume without improving the quality of your contributions.

> I hope you will decide to participate as a responsible member of our

> group by acceding to this request

>

> co-moderator ELAN

Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:18:59 -0500 (EST)

Alicea (calicea@pegasus.rutgers.edu)

This is a point that I support with all my heart and soul. I join JC

Wndemberg, "don't give up Lucio".

ALicea

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, JC Wandemberg wrote:

> Although I may have disagreed with Lucio on occasions I believe we all

> (as subscribers to ELAN) stand to loose when someone unsubscribes. It is

> (respectful) diversity of opinion what helps to keep apathy down and

> communication flowing.

>

> Don't give up Lucio! (there shall always be a couple of narrow-minded

> autocrats who want to impose themselves)

>

> Cheers,

> JC Wandemberg

Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:50:41 -0500 (EST)

Carol

To all concerned,

I really wish that participants on ELAN would once again think about the

purpose of this list and refrain from posting "garbage." I for one am not

interested in continuing to be a part of this group if all that I get are

these continual "squabbles." There is a lot of worthwhile

information/topics as well as differing opinions to discuss. Let's focus on

those.

Carol

Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:17:04 -0500 (EST)

Alicea

Dear Lucio: I energically protest that you are taken out of the list.

No way that we are going to promote a change on environmental policies in

if we censorship people. I do not agree with all your ideas and postings

and I always answer to them when I think is proper. I respectfully

propose a dialogue where the chance to speak for everybody is respected.

I do not think that we can keep telling people what to read and how to

read in the list.

Alicea.

Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:26:48 -0800 (PST)

Coviella

Dear ELANERS:

About Carol's message and the purpose of this list, I believe it

is for discussions that might be of some interest for some of us at a

time, although not necesarily for everybody all the time. In the

discussion of ideas to call other's ideas "garbage" doesn't help.

ELAN has been (and I'm sure it will continue to be) a wonderfull

place to share ideas and to disagree (even with great passion). But this

is precisely (I believe) the meaning and the beauty of this list. If we

are going to discuss, I think we should be prepared to accept serious

disagreements. A serious oponent to my ideas, makes me think about my own

reasons and to how can I support them. And that is valuable, even if

ultimately I do not agree with the other(s).

Some people may have good reasons to feel very strongly regarding

recent discussions. Specially those involving Juan Carlos and Lucio and

others. It has been too long I think. But that is the price of being a

part in an active discussion group. Which is the purpose of being here.

Don't you think?

Regards to everybody.

Coviella

Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:53:35 -0800

Bud

First a practical suggestion for list problems. There is an option in

between having open-ended discussion on the list and banishing those

talkers to private one-on-one email. A few weeks ago I mentioned that ELAN

briefly had a second list, ELAN-D, reserved for discussion. It didn't

"take" at that time, but my sense is that there's been considerable

turnover in ELAN subscribers, so it might take now. Timmons, who along

with David, has invested much time and energy in mounting and maintaining

the ELAN list (thanks, guys!) could describe better than I the experience

with ELAN-D. It's the middle option.

Now to needless editorializing. (If you've got a NE block on your

machine, it will kick in now.) Friends, there is no single, objective

understanding of what is "useful" or "appropriate" on this list other than

that messages should deal with the environment in Latin America, not

promote commercial ends, and be accurately titled. By its very nature ELAN

is intercultural and all forms of discourse are culture-bound constructs.

What's "garbage" to A may be "insight" to B. What is "beating a horse to

death" to C is "clarifying" to D. Anglos and Latinos use language

differently, as do humanists and scientists, practitioners and academics

within those cultures. You know this. I'm ashamed to have to repeat what

we all learned on our first trip abroad, right? Don't let the format --

your familiar pc inside your familiar room on a day when your familiar

schedule is tight -- blind you to the intercultural, interdisciplinary

nature of ELAN. Thanks, friends. End of NE. Bud

Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:16:46 -0800 (PST)

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

Dear Friends. I would be happy to join this option ELAN-D if available

so that we can exchange ideas without worrying about "aparent"

negative externalities. If there is interest, then I am in. Perhaps

this may lead to more participation from "latino americans". Thanks Bud

for the suggestion.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Bud Kenworthy wrote:

> First a practical suggestion for list problems. There is an option in

> between having open-ended discussion on the list and banishing those

> talkers to private one-on-one email. A few weeks ago I mentioned that ELAN

> briefly had a second list, ELAN-D, reserved for discussion. It didn't

> "take" at that time, but my sense is that there's been considerable

> turnover in ELAN subscribers, so it might take now. Timmons, who along

> with David, has invested much time and energy in mounting and maintaining

> the ELAN list (thanks, guys!) could describe better than I the experience

> with ELAN-D. It's the middle option.

......

......

......

Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:26:49 -0600

Ronald

Dear ELANeros,

I disagree with forming another list for discussion. If it is formed I

will probably subscribe to it as well. I agree that those long dialogues

are often boring and one learns just to delete them from the name without

even reading them. Still, having to manage two lists to get the comments

that are interesting is even worse. Couldn't we first try one of two things.

1. Establish a general agreement that one post comments to a given thread

only once and respond individually after that.

2. Establish a moderator mechanism, someone who arbitarily decides if a

posting is of sufficient general interest.

I don't mind losing a few people who do not have the respect and patience

to listen to others, at least at first. Then one can filter out the items

that are not of interest. I think dividing the list would be a mistake and

would end up losing more people in the long run.

Ronald

Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:18:30 -0800 (PST)

Coviella

Dear Elaner's:

I have to say I agree with Ronald about ELAN-D (although I already

subscribed to it). I am an ELAN subscriber since July 1995, and the better

part of it are not the postings but the discussions about them. I have

enriched myself (and I hope I enriched others) with the discussions.

The important point is I guess, to engage in a discussion, but up

to the point where you start to repeat yourself. That was what happened

with recent discussions. Receiving a bunch of mails from people that are

not hearing each other and repeating themselves interminably.

So, I would do whatever the majority decides to do, but like

Ronald, I think we can keep trying with this ELAN. Anyway, I will follow

the discussions wherever they go, because that is what matters in a list

that touches such controversial things.

See you guys wherever you post.

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Ronald wrote:

> Dear ELANeros,

> I disagree with forming another list for discussion. If it is formed I

> will probably subscribe to it as well. I agree that those long dialogues

> are often boring and one learns just to delete them from the name without

> even reading them. Still, having to manage two lists to get the comments

> that are interesting is even worse. Couldn't we first try one of two things.

>

> 1. Establish a general agreement that one post comments to a given thread

> only once and respond individually after that.

>

> 2. Establish a moderator mechanism, someone who arbitarily decides if a

> posting is of sufficient general interest.

>

> I don't mind losing a few people who do not have the respect and patience

> to listen to others, at least at first. Then one can filter out the items

> that are not of interest. I think dividing the list would be a mistake and

> would end up losing more people in the long run.

>

> Ronald

Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:50:46 -0800 (PST)

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

Dear Ronald. This solution would be incomplete because what is important

from a discusion is the spill over effect: the negative/positive comments

made by some are excellent feedback for others with similar psicological

mind and interests. This spillover effect is very limited with a two

people discussion, specially when it goes down to the cathegory of

personal arguments(whether or not there where more than two opinions at

each time). I will give a try to ELAN-D. I will still get the

news from ELAN and then, if I find something interesting for discussion, I

will bring those points to ELAN-D. I am very bussy too, but I always

enjoyed positive and constructive discussions and try to make the time for

it, specially if the spillover effect may go to "Latino America". As soon

as I can make some time I will see how the discussion in ELAN-D can be

started with a strong foot and becomes more participative.

Greetings to all;

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Ronald wrote:

....

....

> 1. Establish a general agreement that one post comments to a given thread

> only once and respond individually after that.

>

> 2. Establish a moderator mechanism, someone who arbitarily decides if a

> posting is of sufficient general interest.

>

....

....

Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:05:04 -0800 (PST)

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

Queridos Amigos. Basado en los acuerdos en Kyoto, Japan con respecto

a el calentamiento climatico y a la creacion de una politica de CO2 como

una forma de contrarestarlo, me gustaria mencionar que los ideas que yo

trate de compartir con ustedes hace unos meses parece que no estaban

fuera de el marco de posibilidades y es claro que ahorita las presiones en

controlar el uso y production de los recursos renovables de energia en

paises subdesarrollados va a aumentar. Es de esperar que las industrias

que controlan la produccion y venta de fuentes de energian no-renobable

tienen ahorita el incentivo economico de controlar o crear endustrias en

el area de recursos renobables para estabilizar el mercado energetico en

el futuro y tener mas flexibilidad. Ejemplo, las companias petroleras

tienen que moverse en esta direccion de acuerdo a una ley simple the

control de mercado.

Lo mismo, como el beneficio de crear emisiones en

condiciones actuales es mayor que el costo de comprar bosques o pagar por

reforestar (sinks) mis comentarios sobre las consequecias potenciales de

esto para paises subdesarrollados hechos anteriormente son hoy mas

cercanos a la realidad que el dia que hice mis comentarios esotericos.

Este tema en mi opinion, necesita mas atencion ahorita en paises

subdesarrollados porque es posible que de la forma que la politica de

control de CO2 va ahorita es posible que en el nuevo sistema las

condiciones sociales y economicas de la persona promedio

se empeoren debido a la posibilidad de desencadenar un proceso masivo de

conversion de areas no forestales a forestales y de protection de bosques

todavia no protegidos sin bases fuertes de planificacion a largo plazo.

Mis saludos a todos;

Sinceramente;

Lucio

Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:53:07 -0800 (PST)

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

Dear Friends, after all the ideas discussed around sustainability and the

CO2 policy previously were not too esoteric at all and some of them became

realistic after the meeting in Kyoto, Japan. Now, the CO2 policy is hear

to stay and the analysis made and the questions raised still hold. I just

want to bring the attention to two questions:

1) What will the rational economic man do in response to this policy?

2) What will the rational environmental man do to in response to the

same policy?

The anwers to these questions will highlight the unsustainability

of development in the short and medium term as they adjust their positions

at the expense of the rational social men.

Greetings y FELIZ NAVIDAD;

Lucio

Note: I tried to test the participation in ELAN-D and nobody did.