Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:03:24 -0500

From: "Constance L. Neely" <>

Subject: Toward Rio+10 E-Conference

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

Please forgive cross postings.

E-CONFERENCE INVITATION - March 5 to 23, 2001

"Toward Rio+10 and Beyond: Progress in Land and Agriculture"

.

INTRODUCTION

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) will take place in

summer 2002 in Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa. Before the

Summit, there will be many preparatory meetings and other events

regarding the environment, development and sustainability for the 21st

Century.

Fundamental to sustainable development is progress in sustainable

agriculture, land management and rural livelihoods. As Task Managers,

FAO and UNEP are responsible for reporting on progress in achieving the

objectives of chapters 10, 12 and 14 of Agenda 21 on "Land and

Agriculture" to the Commission on Sustainable Development 10 (CSD 10).

These chapters specifically cover the following topics:

Chapter 10 – "Integrated approach to the planning and management of

land

resources"

Chapter 12 – "Managing fragile ecosystems: Combating Desertification

and Drought"

Chapter 14 - "Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development"

In order to better reflect the diversity and range of opinions and

conditions worldwide, the Task Managers are organising an electronic

conference to review the draft Task Managers’ joint report to CSD 10 on

Land and Agriculture. This conference will be one mechanism to enhance

participation and build towards other events in preparation for 2002.

The participants’ views will contribute to finalisation of the report to

go forward to the CSD Secretariat.

You are cordially invited to participate in this Electronic Conference

entitled:

"Toward Rio+10 and Beyond: Assessing Progress and Next Steps for Land

and Agriculture"

WHEN WILL THE E-CONFERENCE BE HELD?

March 5 to 23, 2001

WHO IS ORGANIZING THE E-CONFERENCE?

The Agriculture Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO) and the United Nations Environment Program

(UNEP) in partnership with the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural

Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM CRSP)

of the University of Georgia, USA.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE?

It will provide a forum to solicit multiple perspectives to assess

progress and stimulate further achievement of the goals of Chapters 10,

12, and 14. The result will contribute to preparations for CSD-10,

Rio+10 and beyond.

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE?

1. Solicit contributions to the integrated Task Managers’ report (Part

II) for CSD-10.

2. Solicit success stories on Agriculture and Land.

3. Identify priorities for policy and action to achieve sustainability

in agriculture and land following Rio+10.

WHAT ARE THE EXPECTED OUTPUTS?

1. Contributions to the final version of the Task Managers' Report (Part

II) on Chapters 10, 12, and 14 to be submitted to the Commission on

Sustainable Development (CSD-10)

2. A summary report of discussions to be provided to the Forum on

Sustainable Agricuilture and Rural Development to be held on 29 March

2001 during the 16th session of the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG)

(26 to 30 March 2001)

3. Solicit contributions to a database of Success Stories on Agriculture

and Land

4. Identification of the Next Steps for Agriculture and Land beyond

Rio+10

WHO WILL PARTICIPATE?

The E-Conference is open to all individuals and institutions interested

in the future of agriculture and land drawing on Civil Society

Organizations, Government, Non-Governmental Organizations, the Private

Sector and International Institutions.

HOW WILL IT WORK?

Participants will be able to access background information including the

draft Task Managers' Report for Chapters 10, 12, and 14 of Agenda 21.

Once the conference starts, the E-Conference Support Team will provide

key questions to stimulate discussion. The Support Team Moderators will

facilitate deliberations during the Conference.

The E-Conference will be held in English. Submissions in other languages

will be welcomed and posted in the language in which submitted.

HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN THE DIALOGUE?

There are two ways to subscribe to the E-Conference:

Via the Web Page:

Visit the "Agriculture, Land and Rural Development" WebPage for Rio+10

and the three chapters of Agenda 21 at

http://www.fao.org/prods/sard/rio10/index-en.htm. Click on

"E-Conference" in the side bar to the right and then click on

"Registration" at the top of the next page. Fill out the registration

form and submit it.

OR

Via E-Mail:

To subscribe to the e-conference by email, please send an e-mail with

the

subject header blank to:

mailserv@mailserv.fao.org

In the body of the text write the line: subscribe RIO10-L

WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?

Additional information regarding other preparations for the upcoming

E-Conference can be found on the FAO web page at

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

Please pass along this information to others who might find this of

interest.

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:02:11 +0100

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

Subject: Rio+10 "Progress in Land and Agriculture" E-Conference: Message 1

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

Message 1 - Welcome

Dear Colleagues,

It is our great pleasure to welcome you to the Electronic Conference

entitled "Toward Rio+10 and Beyond: Progress in Land and Agriculture".

As preparations accelerate for the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(Rio +10) in 2002, we wish to take this opportunity to collaboratively

assess the challenges and opportunities for "Land and Agriculture" leading

to the Summit and beyond.

The main purpose of this electronic event is to provide a forum for

international exchange from multiple perspectives to review and enrich the

Task Managers' joint report for Chapters 10, 12, and 14 of Agenda 21. By

taking into account the contributions to this and other events, the document

delivered to the CSD Secretariat will best reflect the diversity of

expertise, experience and conditions world-wide. Additionally, we look to

your help in capturing success stories and lessons learned in order to offer

guidance on the next steps to sustain the land and agriculture in the new

century.

We would like to emphasize the importance in our view of this event, both in

terms of the topic and the consultative process of discussion and debate. We

have a singular opportunity to confirm the continuing significance of

agriculture and land to sustainable development for the future. We look to

you now, our E-Conference participants, to provide your critical insights

and innovative ideas to identify the trends and point the way forward.

With this message, we formally open the E-Conference. We would like to thank

you all again for taking the time to join us. We look forward to your

valuable contributions and participation over the coming weeks.

Sincerely,

Parviz Koohafkan

Task Manager for Chapter 10

Timo Maukonen

Task Manager for Chapter 12

Eric Kueneman

Task Manager for Chapter 14

Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 10:54:44 +0100

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

Subject: Message 7 - Intervention by Miguel Altieri

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

Despite increases in food production the developing world faces major food

insecurity challenges. This insecurity is linked to massive poverty, mal

distribution of land, and the pressures of globalization that emphasize agro

exports away from basic food crops. Small farmers keep being bypassed by

modern agricultural advances. More than 370 million poor people live in

marginal environments for which modern science does not offer any viable

option. On the contrary there are many examples of farmer-led and NGO led

agroecological initiatives that have resulted in enhanced food security and

environmental conservation regeneration. In the more intensely cropped lands

yields are declining due to degradation promoted by agrochemicals and

mechanization. In such areas the need is for less pesticides and inorganic

fertilizers, and less intensification. Trends however now fueled by

biotechnology are enhancing monocultures and leading to a further

industrialization of agriculture.

Clearly a more sustainable agriculture (SA) is needed, but an operational

definition of SA must be defined, one that gives priority to the urban and

rural poor. This definition must emerge from the grassroots and not from the

international organizations (CGIAR, FAO, World Bank ,etc) that historically

have thought they know what is best for the south and speak for small

farmers. Food must be produced where the poor are concentrated, and with

methods that are based on local resources, using both traditional and modern

agroecological knowledge systems. Technologies for the poor must be

developed in a participatory way, must be risk averting, cheap and

accessible, adapted to marginal areas and health and environment enhancing.

Any other technological development that does not meet such requirements,

regardless of the promises (i.e as the highly publicized biotechnology) will

not yield the desired impacts.

It is time that the UN provides the political support for an alternative

agricultural development approach, engaging in a real partnership with NGOs,

farmers organizations, environmental groups and consumer groups in the

search for a more socially just and economically viable agriculture. The

urgency of the task demands for the utilization of public funds to embark in

a major effort up scaling the various successful but localized examples of

sustainable agriculture around the developing world. An alternative

institutional framework will also be needed, where FAO could serve as

catalyst distributing funds to those organizations including NGOs and

farmers organizations committed to delivering solutions. We cannot afford

continuing to bet solely on an international agricultural research system

(CGIAR and GFAR) that has not delivered what is needed despite the millions

of dollars that are spent in the name of agricultural research and

development.

It is crucial that we come to grips with how serious and urgent the problem

is and mobilize the resources immediately to promote what is really working

out there.

Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley

Date: 11 Mar 2001 14:51:52 -0000

From: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

Reply-To: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

To: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

Subject: [dglocal] Resumen n=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=FA?=mero 118

LISTA DGLOCAL.=20

Auspiciada por la RED PERU (Coordinadora de Mesas de Concertaci=F3n para el=

Desarrollo Local) http://www.geocities.com/redperudlocal

Administrador: wvarillas@amauta.rcp.net.pe=20

Lista DGLOCAL: http://www.egroups.com.mx/group/dglocal=20

Para enviar mensajes a la Lista DGLOCAL: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

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

Hay 1 mensaje en este n=FAmero.

Temas de este resumen:

1. Los nuevos actores de la no violencia=20

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

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Mensaje: 1

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

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

Asunto: Los nuevos actores de la no violencia=20

JOS=C9 VIDAL-BENEYTO=20

Los nuevos actores de la no violencia=20

Ese portentoso vendedor de ideolog=EDa USA que fue Marshall McLuhan nos con=

venci=F3, hace 30 a=F1os, del inevitable cumplimiento de su profec=EDa sobr=

e la aldea global: un maravilloso espacio =FAnico en el que el american way=

of life y las virtudes de la tecnocomunicaci=F3n iban a abolir la multipli=

cidad de lugares y a hacernos convivir, a todos los humanos, en la armon=ED=

a de una sola y misma realidad compartida. Su mensaje era: todos igualmente=

desarrollados, felices, comunicantes, norteamericanizados. Kisinger y Brze=

cinsky agregaron a esta doctrina los escolios geopol=EDticos; las exigencia=

s de la dominaci=F3n financiera le han puesto m=FAsica de globalizaci=F3n, =

y el despliegue digital ha servido de ocasi=F3n e instrumento para enmallar=

nos en el ciberespacio, a mayor gloria y provecho de las multinacionales y =

de su hegemon=EDa.

Pero la profec=EDa no ha funcionado porque la aspiraci=F3n humana a la dive=

rsidad ha resistido a la voluntad de cancelaci=F3n de las diferencias y se =

ha opuesto -con =E9xito- a la avalancha homogeneizadora de la producci=F3n =

y del consumo de masas, considerablemente reforzados por la presi=F3n pol=

=EDtica del gran poder econ=F3mico. Esa uniformizaci=F3n ha generado, al co=

ntrario, una incontenible eclosi=F3n de afirmaciones locales y comunitarias=

, una reivindicaci=F3n, con frecuencia dram=E1ticamente radical e incluso v=

iolenta, de identidades colectivas que, en su condici=F3n esencialmente rea=

ctiva, al mismo tiempo impugnan y afirman la naturaleza global de todo acon=

tecer contempor=E1neo. No se trata de la incoherente banalidad al uso de 'p=

ensar globalmente y de actuar localmente', sino del compacto entramado entr=

e lo local y lo global, de la calidad de su entretejimiento que los hace in=

disociables en su hacer y en sus resultados. Su alcance e importancia les v=

ienen de la intensidad de su interrelaci=F3n. De aqu=ED que lo globalmente =

relevante tenga que ser tambi=E9n localmente decisivo. A esta realidad tan =

de ahora, que es simult=E1neamente proceso y resultado, la llamamos glocali=

dad -contracci=F3n de global y local-, y a sus protagonistas, actores gloca=

les.

Dos de los m=E1s significativos est=E1n siendo noticia estos d=EDas. Ambos =

tienen en com=FAn su apuesta por una sociedad alternativa que asuma el proc=

eso mundializador al que nos empuja el desarrollo tecnol=F3gico pero que no=

s evite las cat=E1strofes ecol=F3gica y social hacia las que nos lleva la g=

lobalizaci=F3n ultraliberal, resultado de la implacable codicia de unos poc=

os y la impotente indiferencia de los m=E1s. Ambos tienen en com=FAn su pas=

ado de luchadores en su tierra y en su pueblo, en combates de contenido loc=

al y concreto pero cuya relevancia global han sabido presentar y subrayar e=

chando mano de los recursos de nuestro contexto tan avasalladoramente medi=

=E1tico. Ambos han enraizado su acci=F3n, necesariamente contestataria en c=

uanto antagonista de un orden que rechazan, en la no-violencia. Y =E9sta es=

quiz=E1 su caracter=EDstica fundamental: recusar la violencia -componente =

esencial de la sociedad que quieren cambiar radicalmente- por medios no vio=

lentos. Ambos apelan a los mismos maestros. Ambos -en su =E1mbito y para su=

s prop=F3sitos- usan los mismos modos y maneras.

Jos=E9 Bov=E9 hace casi treinta a=F1os que est=E1 oponi=E9ndose, en su Larz=

ac de adopci=F3n, a una agricultura productivista y depredadora que acaba c=

on la calidad de los productos, favorece el despilfarro de las ayudas p=FAb=

licas y el enriquecimiento de los grandes propietarios y fragiliza la segur=

idad de la alimentaci=F3n. Bov=E9, disc=EDpulo de Lanza del Vasto, que, com=

o =E9l dice, no ha dado un pu=F1etazo aunque haya corrido y se haya protegi=

do ante la polic=EDa, ha producido contestaciones de car=E1cter eminentemen=

te simb=F3lico-medi=E1tico. El subcomandante Marcos, peculiar guerrillero q=

ue ha defendido durante nueve a=F1os a la comunidad india de Chiapas frente=

a un poder autocr=E1tico central y que s=F3lo ha hecho la guerra durante 1=

1 d=EDas, y cuya arma fundamental es su pasamonta=F1as, llegar=E1 ma=F1ana =

a la ciudad de M=E9xico, meta de una marcha que, como la marcha de la sal d=

e Gandhi -en la que est=E1 directamente inspirada-, es antes que nada una a=

cci=F3n mexicana de pedagog=EDa ciudadana a la que la glocalidad presta dim=

ensi=F3n mundial, pues, hoy, frente a la profec=EDa macluhaniana, lo univer=

sal es s=F3lo la vocaci=F3n planetaria de lo local.

www.elpais.es

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:54:00 +0100

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

Subject: Message 13 - Intervention by Lucio Munoz,

Comments on Draft Task Managers' Report on "Agriculture and Land", Part 1

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

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

in Vancouver, Canada.

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

increasing poverty and increasing environmental degradation.

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

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

possible, but with long-term objectives.

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

that the policies originally followed to address poverty and environmental

degradation led to increase poverty and increased environmental degradation.

Then globalization came to worsen the problem more by intensifying the

poverty and environmental degradation problem of concern. Have we failed

the goals of Rio so far?

As things are right now, globalization forces will become wilder and poverty

and environmental degradation appear to be moving to a critical stage.

Eco-economic partnerships cannot be the solution in the long term as implied

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

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

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

instruments and processes chosen to achieve that.

This report indicates that while poverty increased and environmental

degradation increased, production increased, standard of living in

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

government and international research networks increased, economic

development over all increased, free trade increased, infrastructure

improvements have increased, vertical integration has increased,

privatization has increased, and decentralization has increased.

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

environmental degradation we are generating. And the report suggest that

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

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

problem we are trying to address.

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

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

degradation are still worse.

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

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

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC. Canada

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:55:13 +0100

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

Subject: Message 14 - Intervention by Lucio Munoz,

Comments on Task Manage rs' Report on "Agriculture and Land", Part 2

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

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

comments sent before are appropriate with respect to the systematic

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

intended to be used to address those goals. From my point of view I can

summarize the strategy presented and used in the following steps, from the

bottom up:

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

Strategy;

b) because of this variability different weights and priorities were

allocated to the different elements of the strategy;

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

development of agriculture and rural areas, combating desertification and

droughts, and integrated planning and management of land resources;

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

complementary;

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

degradation and desertification;

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

technologies based on a framework of free trade later compounded by

globalization;

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

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

g) then again it is recommended more money and commitment to go into

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

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

framework of intensified globalization.

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

exploring other possible venues to make the strategies/tools/technologies

used and to be used a little more poverty and environmentally friendly? I

think we have to find ways to: a) directly link and fit these

tools/technologies/processes to the goals we are aiming at, namely less

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

and environmental degradation falls the positive externalities can be easily

measured and assess; and c) for doing this, we need to realize, I think,

that land sustainability and agricultural sustainability is more than

integrating components and subcomponents of a strategy.

With warm greetings, your comments are welcome.

Sincerely,

Lucio Munoz

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:56:50 +0100

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

Subject: Message 15 - Intervention by Lucio Munoz,

Comments on "The Place of Agriculture in Sustainable Development: the way

forward on SARD"

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

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

Agriculture in Sustainable Development: the way forward on SARD".

I have the following specific and general comments to share:

Specific comments:

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

described it still appears to remain under sustainable development;

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

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

reduction of environmental degradation while the role of FAO is on

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

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

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

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

increased productivity is accompanied by less workers in the agricultural

sector;

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

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

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

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

mainly;

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

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

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

the ones who get less or no DFI funding;

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

appear to be an added bonus to apparently already established comparative

advantages;

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

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

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

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

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

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

trends.

General comments

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

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

"environmentally friendly", but this environmentally friendliness was never

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

security) that were stated;

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

worse, which means that food insecurity is worse;

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

it is the institution responsible to eradicate poverty, including rural

poverty I think;

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

consumers, including poor consumers in rural areas;

f) since there is poverty within SARD, then the World Bank should channel

funds through SARD to stabilize it and coordinate efforts with FAO formally;

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

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

to non-local consumers.

Things to consider:

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

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

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

crack to newly developed technology is a problem;

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

increase deforested area pressures on remaining forested areas (conversion

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

and should be expected to increase developed country pressures on less

develop countries simply because under unequal footing the distribution of

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

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

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

it, which is the minority;

c) better technology/more agricultural productivity under intensified

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

the weak, and one way is steeper verticalization;

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

is facing right now.

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Lucio Munoz

Date: 12 Mar 2001 13:45:18 -0000

From: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

Reply-To: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

To: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

Subject: [dglocal] Resumen n=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=FA?=mero 119

LISTA DGLOCAL.=20

Auspiciada por la RED PERU (Coordinadora de Mesas de Concertaci=F3n para el=

Desarrollo Local) http://www.geocities.com/redperudlocal

Administrador: wvarillas@amauta.rcp.net.pe=20

Lista DGLOCAL: http://www.egroups.com.mx/group/dglocal=20

Para enviar mensajes a la Lista DGLOCAL: dglocal@egroups.com.mx

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

Mensaje: 1

Fecha: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:27:24 -0600

De: "Walter Varillas" <wvarillas@amauta.rcp.net.pe>

Asunto: Sostenibilidad social y ambiental

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

Estimados Amigos/amigas, lei un mensaje de la Lista con bastante interes. L=

a

aldea

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

basada en cooperation global, justicial social and ambiental global, y fuer=

a

de fuerzas maximadoras de objectivos relevantes solo para grupos especifico=

s

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

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

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

Estas fuerzas hacen generalmente las aspiraciones globales inconsistente co=

n

las aspiraciones locales. Si revertimos el proceso, entonces las

aspiraciones locales aparecen en conflicto con las aspiraciones globales.

No estoy muy familiarisado con lo que GLOCALIZACION significa exactamente y=

a

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

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

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

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

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

sostenible. Como procesos optmizadores entre otras cosas son basados en

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

Encontre este mensaje bien interesante, y pense que seria apropiado

compartir algunas

ideas propias. Mis disculpas si estoy equivocado.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

> 1. Los nuevos actores de la no violencia

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

>

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:58:19 +0100

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

Subject: Message 17 - Questions for Week 2

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

Dear Colleagues,

We would like to thank those of you who contributed to the questions of Week

One. Today the second week of the three week E-Conference begins. In the

first week, we asked what you consider to be the most critical challenges

and trends in land and agriculture (Question 1) and how the Task Managers'

Report to CSD-10 can be improved (Question 2). We also asked that you

consider these challenges or trends in terms of specific issues:

1. the environmental and the biological dimensions of sustainability

2. production, access and distribution

3. social, cultural and institutional issues

4. questions of political will

5. and other points.

We encourage all participants to continue to consider and to respond to the

first weeks' questions, especially those who have not made an intervention

yet and the many who continue to join the E-Conference.

This week will provide an opportunity to move from "what" in terms of

current challenges and trends in agriculture and land Ten Years after Rio to

"how" to address those challenges and trends with practical strategies and

concrete action.

To move forward this week, we propose that you direct your discussions to

the following:

QUESTION 3. From your perspective, what would you identify as the root

causes of the current trends and challenges for agriculture and land? (For

example, in relation to land degradation, food safety and sustainable

livestock production, food security and access to land, etc).

QUESTION 4. Drawing upon your experience, what are your proposals for action

and the way forward on SARD? In responding to this question, you may wish to

address methods, tools, practices, and policies that will lend themselves to

solutions. Feel free to address both local community levels of action and

national or international levels.

Once again, you are invited to refer to the sections of the joint Task

Managers' Report and the FAO paper on SARD for COAG. Also, we invite you to

continue to address the four issue areas listed above. You may of course

identify the other core issues within or beyond these four.

With this call to help chart the way forward on SARD for Week Two, you will

soon receive a message with the draft agenda for the SARD Forum to be held

March 29th, 2001, concurrent with the COAG meeting in Rome. Representatives

of major groups in civil society, business and government will continue the

dialogue on SARD and this E-Conference will provide them with valuable

insights and a wide range of perspectives. In the Third Week we will take up

your suggestions for the SARD Forum directly.

Thank you for your participation. We look forward to your contributions in

Week Two of the E-Conference!

Best regards from the Moderators

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:03:10 +0100

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

Subject: Message 18 - For Information: Draft Agenda of the Forum on Sustai

nable Agriculture and Rural Development (29 March 2001).

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

DRAFT AGENDA

Forum on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development

29 March 2001 (at COAG 16th Session)

Context

The Forum is organized as a Special Event, concurrent to the FAO Committee

on Agriculture. Holding the event at COAG offers an opportunity to

capitalise on the discussions on the SARD Paper prepared for COAG and the

momentum in the Major Groups established since the focus on SARD and Land at

CSD 8 in 2000. The Forum will assist in completing the Task Managers' Report

on "Land and Agriculture" for CSD 10 and in preparations for Rio+10.

Participation

Participation at the Forum will include:

* Representatives of at least seven of the Major Groups in Agenda 21:

Indigenous, NGOs, Trade Unions/Farm Workers, Private Sector, Local

Authorities, Farmers', Women

* Regional Focal Groups working with FAO: Africa (French and English

speaking), Asia, Latin America, Europe, Near East

* Thematic Groups/Constituencies working toward the Committee on Food

Security and the World Food Summit Five Years Later

* Representatives of Government attending the COAG

The Agenda: Process and Content

Process

The representatives of the seven Major Groups and five regions will speak to

each topic from their perspective. Debate will be organized into a maximum

of five minutes of intervention per topic per group. At the end of each

round, the Chair(s) will request comments and reactions from the

representatives of Government. As time permits, there could be further

debate within each round. There will therefore be time for two complete

rounds of interventions per session.

The Agenda for 29 March 2001

Morning Session (9:00-12:00) - General Theme 1

Rural areas are faced with severe constraints that undermine agriculture and

sustainable development. What are the major, contemporary opportunities and

approaches to attract public support, institutional resources and financial

commitment for agriculture and rural development? Please offer practical

illustrations from current experience from your Major Group and/or Region in

confronting the challenges facing rural localities.

First round of specific interventions

Illustrate effective use and management of natural, financial and human

resources for SARD at the community level, especially through partnerships

amongst stakeholders.

Second round of specific interventions

How can we get financial and human resources committed to SARD at the

national policy level and supported by international development partners

especially financial institutions?

Afternoon Session (13:00-16:00) - General Theme 2

Inspired by the discussions of this morning, discuss how Government, Civil

Society and the Private Sector best collaborate to achieve SARD? What

mechanisms exist already to make progress in building effective

partnerships?

First round of specific interventions

At the district, local and communities levels, what strategies have proven

effective for co-operation among stakeholders in relation to "technical

areas"? (such as better management of degraded lands, improvements in the

food chain from farm to table, sustainable livestock and crop production,

integration of new methods and tools that fit well in social contexts as

determined by local communities, etc.)

Second round of specific interventions

In international fora and national strategic planning processes, what

strategies have proven effective for co-operation among stakeholders in the

conception and implementation of policy? (include building a better

institutional and legislative context)

Summary Session (16:30-17:30)

"The Way Forward" - Recommendations toward CSD 10 and the World Summit on

Sustainable Development (Rio+10)

What can we do now to make a difference to achieve SARD given a decade of

experience since the Earth Summit in 1992? In what areas can we make

specific recommendations to the participants at CSD 10 and Rio+10?

How can the goals of SARD be better incorporated into the national and

international agencies which focus on other critical issues that effect

agriculture, such as food security, climate, forests, biodiversity, etc.?

For example:

How can collaboration become more effective in order to offer the

institutional, organizational and administrative support necessary to

achieve SARD?

What information and decision support technologies would facilitate

selection of best approaches and supporting policies for SARD?

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:12:24 +0100

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

Subject: Message 21 - Summary, Week 1 Comments

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

Dear Colleagues,

We are very grateful to those of you who sent contributions for Week 1.

This message contains a summary of 10 interventions in response to the first

set of questions. Each message that was contributed can be viewed in full

by going to the E-Conference web site and looking at the Record of

Contributions.

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

SUMMARY, WEEK 1 COMMENTS

GETTING AT TRENDS AND CHALLENGES

Several participants pointed out that in most cases we have clearly not seen

the anticipated results of efforts to date. Altieri states, "despite

increases in food production the developing world faces major food

insecurity challenges. This insecurity is linked to massive poverty, mal

distribution of land, and the pressures of globalization that emphasize agro

exports away from basic food crops. Small farmers keep being bypassed by

modern agricultural advances. More than 370 million poor people live in

marginal environments for which modern science does not offer any viable

option." He adds, "trends however now fueled by biotechnology are enhancing

monocultures and leading to a further industrialization of agriculture."

Munoz says the background documents "provide evidence that the policies

originally followed to address poverty and environmental degradation led to

increased poverty and increased environmental degradation." Subsequently

globalization has intensified these problems. He asks, "Have we failed the

goals of Rio so far?"

Based on the fact that issues of poverty (particularly the rural poor) are

complex, Lewis notes that in research efforts for rural economic and

environmental development, there appear to be "built in" weaknesses or

"reasons to expect failure" in the programs during the past 50 or more

years. He sees the reasons as "short term goals; lack of adequate funding;

failure to use inclusive programs which bring into the planning and

implementation the rural poor; perhaps even too close ties with large

agro-business; lack of sensitivity to local conditions; failure to provide

for education and support; failure to provide sufficient infrastructural

support; and lack of political resolve." He notes, "Of course, the list

could be longer."

GETTING AT SOLUTIONS

Altieri takes the discussion toward solution stating, "there are many

examples of farmer-led and NGO led agroecological initiatives that have

resulted in enhanced food security and environmental conservation

regeneration. He calls for an operational definition of Sustainable

Agriculture that gives priority to the urban and rural poor and emerging

from the grassroots and not from the international organizations. He

states, "food must be produced where the poor are concentrated, and with

methods that are based on local resources, using both traditional and modern

agroecological knowledge systems. Technologies for the poor must be

developed in a participatory way, must be risk averting, cheap and

accessible, adapted to marginal areas and health and environment enhancing.

Any other technological development that does not meet such requirements,

regardless of the promises (i.e as the highly publicized biotechnology) will

not yield the desired impacts." Altieri provided his web site

http://nature.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3 and additionally the web site of a

special issue of the Journal of Environment, Development and Sustainability,

Volume 1 3/4 1999, (www.kluweronline.com) highlighting several successful

case studies where agroeological interventions resulted in enhanced food

security and environmental conservation/regeneration among small farmers

throughout the developing world.

In looking toward solution Lewis asks consideration of the several

questions: "(1) should we not consider the complexity of the problems with

respect to endemic rural poverty and stretch our efforts to both identify

and implement programs which would be an integrated solutions based

approach; (2) would not such approach provide the greatest potential for

achieving the across the board improvements required to secure real

sustainable development; (3) under a best practices format, is it not better

to consider the consolidation of human-group resources at the rural level

rather than focusing on individual humans; (4) can NGO or non-profit

activities meet the long term sustainability issues which require address

when so much of their time and effort is necessitated in their raising of

funds through donation and contribution?"

Dubowski states that Poland is just before a huge transformation process in

the agricultural sector. The agriculture problems are well placed relative

to all categories raised in Question 1. He resolves that an education

process of rural society is needed to show how environmental issues are

important for the nation as well for other (European) countries.

Additionally, he says, "we need to find a way how government and

administration official's promises could be changed into real funds and well

controlled actions." Additionally, he provided an example specifically

related to the need for modernization of agricultural transport in Poland.

He notes that by removing agricultural tractors from road transportation, it

will "improve work and road safety, efficiency of transportation, decrease

transportation losses, improve environment (less vibrations, fumes, oils

spillages etc) and save energy resources up to 75K tonnes of fuel per one

year. It can have impact on decreasing unemployment rate in rural areas."

Agreeing with Altieri, Lewis says, "the challenge is to increase the

investment and research into this strategy, and to scale-up projects that

have already proven successful, thereby generating a meaningful impact in

the income, food security and environmental integrity of the world's

population, and especially the millions of poor farmers yet untouched by

modern agricultural technology. In addition, participatory, farmer-friendly

methods of technology development must be incorporated, ensuring that women,

men, elders, and marginalized poor farmers or labor groups are included in

development of alternatives. If we fail to seize this opportunity, the

existing cases will remain as "islands of success" in a sea of deprivation,

merely living testimonies of the potential of the "path not taken" to feed

the rural poor. On the other hand, if we go forward to widely support and

develop an agro-ecological approach, humanity can benefit from its potential

to address the inequity, hunger and environmental degradation that so often

accompany high-input, energy intensive, corporate-style agriculture."

EXAMPLES OF SOLUTIONS

Seck provides an example from Senegal. Since the start of implementing a

Structural Adjustment Programme and with the progressive 'disengagement' of

State agencies, peasant organizations have taken a much more active role in

local development. Seck writes that the Senegalese farmers now find

themselves in a comparatively favourable position to participate directly in

governance and rural affairs.

In 1993, with the support of FAO, the FONGS (Senegalese Federation of NGOs)

organized a national forum of the peasant movement that created the National

Council of Rural Consultation and Cooperation (the "CNCR"). The Council

takes part in negotiations related to agriculture and strategic planning for

investment and development projects. Technical capacity building and

operational analysis of Farmers' Organizations began in 1997 related to

farming and nutrition based on sustainable agriculture A number of studies

have been produced to show the consequences of the WTO and the Uruguay Round

and other agreements on Senegal. There have been case studies specifically

on rice production in Senegal and international trade, financing sources for

the rural world and the prospects for peasant organizations, and women in

sustainable agriculture and the impacts of the WTO. Groups including

representatives from Government Agencies, FAO, agricultural research

institutions, the national council for agriculture and rural areas,

agricultural schools, the Centre for Ecological Monitoring (Dakar), the

association of rural community leaders, bilateral cooperation offices,

Senegalese and European NGOs, and farmers' organizations from West Africa

have come together to review the results of the project.

Lessons arising from the project have contributed to enhanced confidence and

quality of dialogue between peasant organizations, the Government and FAO

for agriculture and rural development. The project has set a precedent for

other countries. The project has reinforced the role of the CNCR of the

FONGS and NGOs have increased their negotiation capacities. The project has

been a benchmark for the Ministry of Agriculture of Senegal, as it engages

in a decentralization process and restructuring of agricultural services.

For FAO, it has provided effective technical assistance to actors in Civil

Society and has opened the doors for collaborating with this new category of

partners and providing better services to farmers. The project has relied on

the expertise of consultants coming from NGOs to provide technical

assistance to the peasant organizations.

Repetti working on land-use management in developing cities provides an

example to focus attention on social and institutional aspects and

participation of multiple actors of the development. In this example, he

says that "the political will is a consequence of the civil society

strengthening, and the technical solutions to environment management have

found good conditions." He notes that if all the proposed trends are

inter-linked and from his experience the social, cultural and institutional

issues are major points for the application of the technological and

political solutions to problems. The example comes from the city of Thies,

Senegal (population of 100'000) which is currently experiencing a 4% growth

rate per year and a subsequent large extension of the urbanized zone, upon

the agricultural land and the rural villages. NGOs such as ENDA TW (1) have

been working there for some time and there is now the existence of a

structured civil society, active in the city districts and in the villages

next to the urbanized zone. Three years ago, the city administration

contacted ENDA and the EPFL to help them solve their problems of resources

management (land, water, soils) and to propose a new land-use plan. The plan

was taken up in partnership between the City, the associations of the civil

society and the villages (about 40) next to the city. After two years of

negotiation the social, cultural and institutional conditions were

favorable. Now they are experimenting with a participative land-use

planning, integrated with resources management (2). The funding of the

seminars, data acquisition, etc is from the city budget. And the conditions

are favorable to technical tools, based on GIS and information technologies.

We are proposing an instrument panel, based on sustainability indicators for

the following up of the development of the region, allowing the top-down and

the bottom-up communication. We are using it to establish the land-use

planning of the region, integrated with resources management.

(1) www.enda.sn <http://www.enda.sn/>

(2) funding Swiss development and cooperation SDC

http://194.230.65.134/dezaweb2/home.asp

<http://194.230.65.134/dezaweb2/home.asp>

Lewis asks, "where are solutions" offered or presented?" He provides some

insights from the Reed Program where they "have worked towards the

development of a "culturally sensitive" program for rural economic and

environmental development and invites us "visit http://www.reedprogram.com

<http://www.reedprogram.com> whereat they present an integrated solutions

based catalyst of activities and programs for attacking both the systemic

conditions of rural poverty, the needs for improved and increased food

production, the requirements for empowering all peoples and programs for

environmental protection and restoration." The program identifies,

integrates, and optimizes the best tools, practices, and forms of

organization for successful and sustainable development. They strongly

encourage the participation of villagers and support the formation of

cooperatives and mutual associations. The Reed Program is now planning the

development of a four-hectare farm model in Vietnam using high-performance,

sustainable technology and management practices.

CALLING ON PARTNERSHIPS AND SUPPORT

Altieri writes, "it is time that the UN provides the political support for

an alternative agricultural development approach, engaging in a real

partnership with NGOs, farmers organizations, environmental groups and

consumer groups in the search for a more socially just and economically

viable agriculture. The urgency of the task demands for the utilization of

public funds to embark in a major effort up scaling the various successful

but localized examples of sustainable agriculture around the developing

world." He suggests an alternative institutional framework where FAO serves

as a "catalyst distributing funds to those organizations including NGOs and

farmers organizations committed to delivering solutions". Altieri states,

"we cannot afford continuing to bet solely on an international agricultural

research system (CGIAR and GFAR) that has not delivered what is needed

despite the millions of dollars that are spent in the name of agricultural

research and development." Rather he asks that resources be mobilized to

"immediately to promote what is really working out there."

Munoz showed surprise at the fact that the "World Bank has no formal role

with SARD when it is the institution responsible to eradicate poverty,

including rural poverty." He says, "SARD is dealing with poor producers and

poor consumers, including poor consumers in rural areas"; and that "since

there is poverty within SARD, then the World Bank should channel funds

through SARD to stabilize it and coordinate efforts with FAO formally; this

way we are dealing with both the supply side and the demand side of SARD at

the same time putting local consumers in better footing as compared to

non-local consumers."

Dubowski adds, "Government should find way not to decrease numbers of R&D

institutes, it should work out proper funds and projects, international

cooperation - to intensified R&D works in agricultural sector on e.g.

sustainable growth."

Lewis, writing later and drawing on the Rural Poverty Report (IFAD, 2001),

states, "effective poverty reduction requires resources to be allocated to

the rural and the poor. Still, reviving agriculture is not the whole, but

only part of the answer to end rural poverty. Agricultural change can work

to reduce poverty, but only when linked to social changes that give the poor

power over the social factors that shape, and far too often circumscribe,

the horizons of their possibilities, including their agricultural options

and assets."

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT TASK MANAGERS' PART I

Munoz sees a systematic delinking of the goals (poverty and environmental

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

processes chosen to achieve the goals. "Eco-economic partnerships can not be

the solution in the long term as implied here if they leave out social

concerns (the majority)." He goes on to say that the "report indicates that

while poverty increased and environmental degradation increased, production

increased, standard of living in industrial/urban areas increased, awareness

and NGO movements increased, government and international research networks

increased, economic development over all increased, free trade increased,

infrastructure improvements have increased, vertical integration has

increased, privatization has increased, and decentralization has increased."

In summary he says, "It looks like the better we do in all the fronts above,

the more poverty and environmental degradation we are generating. And the

report suggest that the way out of this poverty and environmental cycle is

to still improve still more those areas/tools/technologies that appear to be

leading to the problem we are trying to address." Munoz suggests a closer

look be taken at the issues, "otherwise, we may find out during RIO-20 that

poverty and environmental degradation are still worse."

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT TASK MANAGERS' REPORT PART 2

Among the strategies outlined in the paper, Munoz reiterates that 10 years

later, "the priorities of Rio 10 are the same as those of Rio just more

intensified and that it is recommended more money and commitment go into

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

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

framework of intensified globalization." Finding these point contradictory,

he asks "should not be wise to start exploring other possible venues to make

the strategies/tools/technologies used and to be used a little more poverty

and environmentally friendly?" He suggests that we find ways to: a) directly

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

at; b) when poverty and environmental degradation falls the positive

externalities can be easily measured and assessed; and c) for doing this, we

need to realize, I think, that land sustainability and agricultural

sustainability is more than integrating components and subcomponents of a

strategy."

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON "THE PLACE OF AGRICULTURE IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

THE WAY FORWARD ON SARD" PAPER FOR COAG

Curtis disagreed "both personally and professionally" with paragraphs 11 and

12 of section 2 of the paper.

"11. ... Productivity can only improve with the introduction of updated

technologies, including the use of machines, improved plant and animal stock

or varieties, better crop and post-harvest care and, importantly, higher

investment and access to water."

He writes that "the central ethos behind this statement is 'not' sustainable

development; it is profit maximization that ignores the environmental and

social implications of SD." The key to my thoughts on this is the knowledge

that food 'production' is not at the root cause of famine in places such as

Africa (for instance). It is a problem of distribution, and of demographics

- there is ample food already - it is just in the wrong place. The 'use of

machines' entails the increased use of fossil fuels, improved plant and

animal stock probably entails GMO, higher investment and access to water

almost certainly involves ill considered irrigation projects. It is vital

that we understand that the reason why SD has not been embraced

wholeheartedly by the corporate, political or environmental groups is that

corporations -despite any protestations to the contrary are only concerned

with the 'bottom line', all CEO's have one eye on the next shareholder

meeting ... all politicians (and this is not offensive) are only interested

in projects which will mature just in time for the next election ... and

environmentalists usually view the economic aspects of SD as the ultimate

heresy.

Para "12. This, combined with trade and technological developments, can

lower the cost of trading and permit an agricultural surplus to be

exported."

In a nutshell this statement does not fulfill either the social,

environmental or economic criteria for SD. It is solely about profit

margins, reducing costs, increasing production.

Munoz adds, "1) the goals of SARD are mainly the alleviation of rural

poverty and reduction of environmental degradation while the role of FAO is

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

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

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

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

that increased productivity is accompanied by less workers in the

agricultural sector;"

He also sees that since developed countries experience less rural poverty

and hunger there is the issue of it being "somebody's else problems" and

concludes, "perhaps this explains why ODA funding is speedily declining".

Munoz adds that "before Rio, the FAO had the same role, but without the

clear SARD goals and after Rio, the FAO by taking the SARD goals to promote

it became "environmentally friendly", but this environmentally friendliness

was never directly linked to the social goals (alleviation of poverty and

food security) that were stated."

Finally, he asks the group to consider that richer corporations have the

greater benefit of technology "however better technologies/more agricultural

productivity should be expected to increase deforested area pressures on

remaining forested areas (conversion pressures); should be expected to

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

developed country pressures on less develop countries." In short,

"intensified globalization should be expected to increase the pressures of

the strong on the weak, and one way is steeper verticalization."

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

Given the depth and detail of these contributions, we are looking forward

your further further interventions over the next two weeks!

With best wishes,

The Moderators

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:36:49 +0100

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

Subject: Message 32 - Comment by Lucio Munoz on Message 27 from Ryan Curti s

and Message 23 from Brian Lewis

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

Dear Friends,

In general terms reading these two messages made me think, if I am not

mistaken, that one refers to sustainability and the other indicates that

sustainability start at home.

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

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

developed countries, and from their own perspective, sustainability must

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

forces or developing/developed countries; and as we need to find ways to

move away from the notion that "the more is better", the issue becomes "how

much can we sacrify our home for the benefit of all"? I wrote a draft

article dealing with these issues called "Substituting the More is Better

Paradigm for the Less is Better Paradigm: Identifying Key Transitional

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

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

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

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

as both views, developing country/developed country, appear to be

represented in this seminar and could provide their own feedback. After all

we are here to share ideas, not to impose ideas.

Greetings,

Lucio Munoz

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:18:14 +0100

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

Subject: "Record of contributions" available on line.

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

Dear E-Conferees,

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

enter the E-Conference page:

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

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

tab at the top of the page.

With our regards,

The E-Team

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:54:39 +0100

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

Subject: RE: Problem with the RECORD OF CONTRIBUTIONS

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

Cc: "'NEELY, Constance L.'" <>,

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

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

Dear Mr. Munoz,

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

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

encountering problems and, if so, the browser used. Thank you.

Our regards, The E-Team

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

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

Sent: 16 March 2001 17:46

To: RIO10-Moderator

Subject: Problem with the RECORD OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Dear Moderators, checking the site for the RIO-10 website

you sent I found that there is a problem in the record of contributions.

After intervention 28, all other messages regardless of their number show

message 29 and not the message of the person listed. Please, check it out to

avoid confusion by non-paricipants.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: "Record of contributions" available on line.

> Dear E-Conferees,

>

> The "Record of contributions" is now available through the

web site.

Please> enter the E-Conference page:

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

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

then click on the > tab at the top of the page.

>

> With our regards,

> The E-Team

From: "Taylor Family" <pbtaylor@t>

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Subject: I was wondering if you could help me.

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:32:13 -0700

Mr. Munoz

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

studies which requires me to pick and global issue and how it affects =

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

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

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

project.

Thank you for your time!

Alison Taylor

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:39:54 +0100

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

Subject: Message 39 - Contribution by Miguel Altieri

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

Dear Colleagues:

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

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

resource-poor farmers yet untouched by modern science. Perhaps the most

significant realization at the end of the 20th century is the fact that

areas characterized by traditional and peasant agriculture remain poorly

served by the conventional transfer-of-technology approach, due to its bias

in favor if modern scientific knowledge and its neglect of local

participation and traditional knowledge. The historical challenge of the

international agricultural community is therefore to refocus its efforts on

marginalized farmers and their agroecosystems and assume responsibility for

the welfare of their agriculture.

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

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

kinds of agricultural research and resource management strategies. NGOs

have long argued that a sustainable agricultural development strategy that

is environmentally enhancing must be based on agroecological principles and

on a more participatory approach for technology development and

dissemination. Focused attention to the linkages between agriculture and

natural resource management will help greatly in solving the problems of

poverty, food insecurity, and environmental degradation.

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

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

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

their autochthonous natural resources. It must also seriously take into

consideration, through participatory approaches, the needs, aspirations and

circumstances of smallholders. This means that from the standpoint of poor

farmers, innovations must be:

§ Input saving and cost reducing

§ Risk reducing

§ Expanding toward marginal-fragile lands

§ Congruent with peasant farming systems

§ Nutrition, health and environment improving

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

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

directly or indirectly untouched by modern agricultural technology. In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

resource-poor farmers and their complex systems pose special research

challenges and demand appropriate technologies that are:

§ Based on indigenous knowledge or rationale

§ Economically viable, accessible and based on local resources

§ Environmentally sound, socially and culturally sensitive

§ Risk averse, adapted to farmer circumstances

§ Enhance total farm productivity and stability

Many agroecologists have argued that the starting point in the development

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

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

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

sustainably manage harsh environments and to meet their subsistence needs,

without depending on mechanization, chemical fertilizers, pesticides or

other technologies of modern agricultural science. The persistence of

millions of hectares under traditional agriculture in the from of raised

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

successful indigenous agricultural strategy and comprises a tribute to the

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

microcosms of traditional agriculture offer promising models for other areas

as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain

year-round yields.

For years several NGOs in the developing world have been promoting

agroecologically-based NRM approaches. Such organizations argue that a

sustainable agricultural development strategy that is environmentally

enhancing must be based on agroecological principles and on a more

participatory approach for technology development and dissemination.

Agroecology provides a methodological framework for understanding the nature

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

science that provides ecological principles for the design and management of

sustainable and resource - conserving agricultural systems - offering

several advantages for the development of farmer-friendly technologies.

Agroecology relies on indigenous farming knowledge and selected modern

technologies to manage diversity, incorporate biological principles and

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

for an environmentally sound and affordable way for smallholders to

intensify production in marginal areas.

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

promoted by NGOs throughout the developing world which incorporate elements

of both traditional knowledge and modern agricultural science, featuring

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

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

alternative approaches can be described as low-input technologies and

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

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

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

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

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

management.

Agroecological alternative approaches are based on using locally available

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

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

affordable, or appropriate to their conditions. Purchased inputs present

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

supplies and the credit to facilitate purchases are inadequate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

capitalizing on processes of intensification and synergy.

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

significantly through diversification of farming systems, such as raising

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

to household operations in many countries. Agroecological approaches

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

variance in crop yield with better soil and water management.

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

and intensified systems because there is too little research and experience

to establish their limits. Nevertheless, data from agroecological field

projects show that traditional crop and animal combinations can often be

adapted to increase productivity when the biological structuring of the farm

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

most agroecological technologies promoted by NGOs can improve traditional

agricultural yield increasing cereal output per area of marginal land from

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

agrobiodiversity and its associated positive effects on food security and

environmental integrity. Some projects emphasizing green manures and other

organic management techniques can increase maize yields from 1-1.5 t/ha (a

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

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

the component species. Most traditional or NGO promoted polycultures

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

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

components.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essex demonstrates that more than 9 million households have used

agroecological approaches regenerating about 29 million hectares throughout

the developing world. This has been done with one tenth of what goes to the

CGIAR yearly (CG's budget is about 330 million).

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

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

transactions costs?

Miguel A. Altieri

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:19:47 +0100

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

Subject: Message 41 - Questions for Week 3

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

Dear Colleagues,

Today the third and final week of the SARD E-Conference begins. Thank you

for the contributions you have made during Weeks One and Two. You will

shortly receive a summary of the Week Two interventions. As we reiterated

with the questions for Week Two, the questions for this E-Conference on SARD

are cumulative. You may combine responses to questions from weeks one, two

or three.

In the first week, we asked what you consider to be the most critical

challenges and trends in land and agriculture (Question 1) and how the Task

Managers' Report to CSD-10 can be improved (Question 2). In the second week,

we asked that you identify root causes of current trends and challenges

(Question 3) and what proposals you have for action and the way forward on

SARD (Question 4).

This is the final week of the E-Conference, which will conclude just before

the start of the 16th Session of the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG)

from 26 to 30 March. During COAG there will be a SARD Forum, held

concurrently on 29 March, bringing together representatives of civil

society, government and the private sector. This E-Conference is part of

the preparation for this event, as stated in our introductory message. (The

draft agenda for the Forum was sent to all E-Conference participants last

week.)

In bringing the E-Conference to bear even more specifically on the agenda

for the Forum, we ask you to consider the following questions related to

resources and cooperation for achieving SARD:

QUESTION 5. From your perspective, can you provide examples of effective and

integrated use of natural, financial and human resources for SARD at the

local, national or international levels?

QUESTION 6. Can you provide examples of effective cooperation among diverse

stakeholders in relation to technicaland/or policy areas of SARD?

Please address local community levels of action and/or national or

international levels and/or examples extending across levels. It would also

be very useful for you to describe the mechanisms and kinds of agreements or

working relationships that have emerged in these examples.

Thank you for your participation. We look forward to your contributions in

Week Three of the E-Conference!

Best regards from the Moderators

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:49:38 +0100

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

Subject: Message 44 - Comment by Hari Eswaran on Intervention by Miguel Al

tieri (Message 39)

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

Food Security and sustainable agriculture:

Few can disagree on all the comments that have been made until now. Every

one is correct but I suspect that if the problems and constraints that have

been highlighted are corrected, we may make some progress but perhaps not

too great. When I look at the emphasis of all the UN efforts, there is

necessarily the human dimension (essential), there is economics, and there

are policy changes to be made.

However, no one wants to make an investment in the land resources (apart

from brave words). What do we know?

1. There are practically no developing countries with farm-level soil maps;

2. Many of these countries do not have the necessary facilities for support

services to the farmer;

3. So the farmer is left to him/herself while we clear forests to publish

our brave notions.

Some basic questions:

1. Where in a country is the degraded land?

2. If degraded, what kind of degradation?

3. What kind of mitigation technology is most appropriate?

If we cannot provide reasonable answers to these basic questions, we will

continue to state the same in RIO+20. Some will argue that models are

fantastic today and they can provide the answers. The problem in developing

countries is that there are too many models chasing too few data.

So, my plea is to make that effort to document the sate of the land

resources.

If you do not know what you have, you will not know what you have to do.

Dr. Hari Eswaran

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:18:36 +0100

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

Subject: Message 45 - Views of Lucio Munoz on Mr. Altieri's comments

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

Dear Friends,

While I agree with the general view of where the roots of development should

be (locally based) and the need to nurture it and expand it to serve better

the poor, especially the poorest, and finally have a positive impact on

their social, economic, and environmental wellbeing, I have the following

comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sources of unsustainability;

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

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

of food security is affected by them;

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

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

DOMAIN);

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

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

DOMAIN);

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

EQUALITY as equality affects the distribution of production, access to

technology and therefore the supply side of development; and equality

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

demand side of development;

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

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

poverty and more environmental degradation;

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

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

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

are facing a worse situation.

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

My warm greetings to all. Sincerely yours,

Lucio Munoz

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 11:18:06 +0100

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

Subject: Message 50 - Summary, Week 2 Comments

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

We are very grateful to each of you that took the opportunity to respond to

the Questions raised for Week Two. This summary takes into account 19

responses from 16 participants. The responses are grouped below as

responses to Questions 3 and 4. There are two other categories of response

as well: Comments on the Draft Task Managers' Report and Additional

Information.

Although we have tried to capture the key concepts of the interventions, we

are certain that we have not done justice to your good work. We therefore

request that you please go to the E-Conference Web site under "Record of

Contributions" if you wish to view the interventions in full.

Please note that in order to reflect the breadth of discussion, the report

is approximately 12 pages.

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

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

SUMMARY, WEEK 2 COMMENTS

I. QUESTION 3. From your perspective, what would you identify as the root

causes of the current trends and challenges for agriculture and land? (For

example, in relation to land degradation, food safety and sustainable

livestock production, food security and access to land, etc).

ROOT CAUSES

* The Historical Perspective

Lewis offers a historical perspective in addressing the "root cause" of the

problems of soil degradation, erosion, and depletion, water contamination,

loss and supply. He surmises that the root causes date back to the end of WW

II when "the ideas of confrontation through the manipulation of peoples and

governments surfaced and developed into the food programs initiated in

response [to crisis] and then expanded into other areas of the world."

Speaking of both governments and UN bodies, he states, "rather than

undertaking programs that would have developed the capacity of these many

people to improve their lives and to encourage them to participate in the

growth and development of their countries and of the world economy, these

international forces prevented and precluded the establishment of such

important programs." The "Green Revolution" resulted along with lobbying

for supply side entities as "people in the West began to see themselves as

having an unrestricted ability to solve problems and cure social ills."

Further, he says, "the real question of human dignity and participation

remains, for the most part, ignored and unaddressed"; "the real

participation of people must be achieved toward constructive solutions or we

can rest assured that their lack of participation towards such goal will

most definitely bring them into open and disastrous conflict with forces

that are aligned to exclude them."

* Implications of Global Climate Change

Curtis addressed the issue of environmental considerations and the

implications of global warming on agriculture noting that a redesign of

farming methods will be necessary throughout the world. Global warming is

leading to changes in seasonal variations and the possible loss of better

farming lands to submersion. Deforestation has led to loss of topsoil,

increased salinization in some water tables and contamination of water

sources with distant impacts. The degradation of marginal areas due to

overgrazing has contributed to the increase in desertification.

* Economics and Distribution of Wealth

Curtis states that "the problem is one of economics and the distribution of

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

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

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

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

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

returned to their control. Citizens of affluent countries will never

willingly give up their 'luxuries' in order that citizens of other countries

can satisfy their basic needs for survival. The governments of affluent

countries will never willingly carry out any actions that will realistically

infringe upon the standard of living of the voting population of their

respective countries."

Robinson commenting on Curtis writes, "I believe that Mr. Curtis is right in

regarding the agricultural development problems as macro-economic (such as

wealth "trapped" in the developed countries). As an aside, he also mentions

the political situation that is at the heart of economic problem;

governments in developed countries must maintain the living standards of

their constituents (or lose [their place in] government). Electors would

always remove governments that lower their standards of living because it is

the task of governments to improve standards of living. I therefore propose

that the SOURCE of many of the problems discussed so far is the use of

elections to install government. Although this is obvious and (more or less)

undeniable, there seems to be no credible alternative to democracy, and

little likelihood that democracy will be modified in the near future. It is

THE political ideal of capitalism and the post-modern era."

* The Cycle of Population and Poverty

Ayoki speaks to the environment and sustainability question, from a Ugandan

perspective (A supporting document he offered is provided with Message 25 in

the "Record of contributions"). "The Uganda experience is that poverty,

population growth, natural resource depletion and environmental degradation

are linked in a vicious cycle. Uganda, like many poor countries is

struggling to overcome widespread poverty and destitution, including food

shortages, unemployment, inadequate housing, stagnating or even falling

standards of health and education, inadequate infrastructure, and escalating

public indebtedness. The prevailing poverty and rapid population growth has

resulted in land degradation and deforestation and subsequently in food

insecurity. The demand for food, for instance, is expected to triple over

the next 30 years, and previous experience indicates that poverty and food

shortages have a negative impact on economic, social and political

stability."

Lewis points out that in the past, "there was no industrial revolution

creating both wealth and havoc; no communications revolution providing

access and connection with the wisdom of the world. In those ancient times

there was a practical need to solve problems, to improve the life of the

people, to promote social and environmental welfare."

* Implications of HIV/AIDS

Ayoki says, "AIDS/HIV has had significant adverse effects on parameters such

as household demographic composition, labour and income. These in turn

affect food production, education, cropping patterns, livestock production,

labour allocation, access to productive assets, and consumption of goods and

services." Policy makers "view it as a medical or health problem only,

rather than a development problem". To this effect, an integrated approach

to sensitise the public and hence reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS and its

consequences should be initiated in the rural areas as well. The Ugandan

Government must however be commended for its effort in educating the public

through the mass media.

* Implications of Trade Issues

Ayoki speaking from experience in Uganda states, "there are legitimate

concerns regarding environmental implications of liberal investment

prescribed in the GATT rules. GATT resulted in an agreement that globalizes

the agriculture sector. Agricultural support policies have been taken away

from unilateral policy making and brought under multilateral rule.

Specifically: (i) Trade in agriculture commodities is currently more bound

than trade in industrial products; (ii) Although agriculture commodities

face a few tariff barriers, they face many non-tariff barriers; and (iii)

Within the agreement on agriculture there are imbalances with respect to the

operation of the commitments on domestic support measures as well as export

subsidy regimes". Ayoki also notes that the Trade-Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) "may escalate the imbalance against

developing countries by restricting access to new technology. The TRIPS

agreement put developing countries, already constrained by low levels of

income, a limited degree of skill development and the dearth of indigenous

technological innovation capacity at a disadvantage". Measures to strengthen

technology transfer and diffusion through the encouragement of local

innovation and technological development are needed and environmental

measures should not be used by developed countries as new protectionist

measures.

* Buffer-stocks and the Hunger

Lewis states that, "the acknowledgement that sufficient food is presently

produced to prevent malnutrition and hunger begs the questions of whether

this will be true in the future or not". He says that, "We have the

technology, we have the means, what we do not have is the time to waste."

Veeresh agreeing with Lewis' points relative to linking social change with

agricultural solutions adds "the green revolution technologies have become

'islands of success' in a 'sea of deprivation'". Using the example of India,

he notes, "there is a buffer-stock, while 300 million people go to bed

without a meal". He states: "30% of farmers who have access to green

revolution technologies contributed to the buffer stock of the Nation while

70% of Farming, coming under dryland agriculture has not been influenced by

these costly, high input technologies. The high input, energy intensive,

corporate style agriculture is not only non-remunerative to these farmers

but will further erode the fragile ecosystem natural resources and aggravate

rural poverty."

Lundall-Magnuson agreeing with Veeresh on the deprivation that "food being

in commercial storage from production by a small percentage of the

population while rural people are hungry" creates, states "poverty will only

be alleviated if and when we realize the seriousness of hunger in the

developing world. We want to improve technology to increase production

forgetting that the poor farmer cannot afford our technology. When people

are hungry they only think about food and how to survive and nothing else."

Ewing, speaking from experience in Australia and commenting on

Lundall-Magnusan, writes that "the technology that is needed is technology

that is appropriate to the region. This, incorporated into a sustainable

design, will make a difference." Further he adds, "people need to be able to

grow their own food. Or at least some of it. This is a first step."

Albertse, speaking of South Africa, responds, "although we live in a country

where we export diamonds, gold, wine, table grapes etc, there are still

thousands of people that do not have enough to eat or suffer from

malnutrition. Although we do have appropriate technology available and we

train people to grow vegetables and fruit using a minimum amount of water or

even recycled water, people cannot always even afford to buy this equipment.

There is a constant urge to grow your own food. People that moved to the

large cities are mostly without jobs and in order to survive, they try to

grow vegetables." He reports that in several communities, "people were given

land, but they still have no equipment, implements, tractors and capital to

work their fields in order to produce crops. Although they now have land,

they do not have the means to produce crops."

* Political Will

Curtis states, "all of the research has already been done, over the last 30

years pretty much all of the solutions have been devised and tested - what

is holding back implementation of sustainable agriculture is the lack of

political will, and the surplus of consumer ignorance and apathy. If we are

not willing to pay sensible prices for good quality food, a price that

allows a decent standard of living, and a decent quality of life, for those

whose occupation is food production - then we will end up with unsustainable

agriculture by default."

II. QUESTION 4. Drawing upon your experience, what are your proposals for

action and the way forward on SARD? In responding to this question, you may

wish to address methods, tools, practices, and policies that will lend

themselves to solutions. Feel free to address both local community levels

of action and national or international levels.

ACTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD

* Inclusiveness

Lewis says, "We must establish a way in which we include people, all people,

their ideas, their beliefs, their experience and history. This 'inclusion'

requires, indeed it demands, that we honestly and whole-heartedly seek to

enrich and develop all peoples and societies capacities to care and to

recognize the need to work on the problems and issues for which we

collectively must find solutions."

Sukalac offers an example of a recent meeting that "demonstrates that

international organizations, NGOs and other third parties can only play an

enabling role. "The key is to empower local communities to take the best

decisions for them locally and to ensure that the means exist for putting

these home-grown strategies into practice." She informs us of a "World Bank

meeting between African agricultural producer organizations and

representatives of agricultural input companies in Paris at the behest of

the African farmers" This was seen as a " great step in grappling with

Africa's agricultural problems". "African farmers are becoming well

organized politically and economically". "Their absolute priority is feeding

the people of Africa. However, they did not overlook their role as producers

in a global marketplace both as a way to earn money that can facilitate

hunger reduction and as a tool for overall development." The agricultural

producers "expressed a need for better access to agricultural inputs,

[through] creative financing tools". The producers also require information

on markets, products and services, and about strategies for integrating

products into overall production to achieve the best possible results with

minimal side effects.

* SARD Begins At Home

Curtis states that "GAIA implements sustainable development activities in

developed countries as this is "where the vast majority of damage is being

done". He says: "We have to show the citizens of the west that

sustainability begins at home."

Munoz agrees that sustainability begins at home. He goes on to say "just as

environmental degradation can come from the action of social and economic

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

countries, and from their own perspective, sustainability must start at

home. However, this has sacrifices for both of them social/economic forces

or developing/developed countries; and as we need to find ways to move away

from the notion that 'the more is better', the issue becomes 'how much can

we sacrifice our home for the benefit of all'? After all we are here to

share ideas, not to impose ideas."

* Information Technology

Holst remarks that "modern information technology has a large potential for

teaching farmers and traders with the latest news on pest management (early

warnings, integrated solutions) and market prices." He tells us that even

"where the Internet stops due to lack of infrastructure or economic means,

information can be conveyed further through traditional channels (e.g. radio

broadcasting) and institutions (district offices of NGOs and extension

services). Internet-based information networks have the advantage that, once

established they are not expensive to maintain; maintenance is more a

question of organization, a steady hand, than of money." A DANIDA-funded

project is in the making relative to this concept (see

http://www.agrsci.dk/plb/nho/inppmm/ <http://www.agrsci.dk/plb/nho/inppmm/>

).

* Land with Infrastructure

Albertse providing an example from South Africa notes, "giving land to

people is not always the solution to poverty alleviation. This action must

be supported by allocation of development capital, extension service and

training." In some cases, "obtaining land was therefore only the means to

obtain money which they did not previously had. Although this was

experienced in three communities, we have several successes in certain

communities. This can be ascribed to ownership of land, training, funds to

develop and a market for their products. This success was at Eksteenskuil

where the people produced grapes, a high-income crop. Younger farmers are

interested in grape production where they can see a success story."

* Mobilizing Cutting Edge Science

Hussain refers us to an IFPRI (www.cgiar.org/ifpri)

<http://www.cgiar.org/ifpri)> and WRI report in which it states that "40%

of agricultural land is seriously degraded, with the net result that crop

productivity has been reduced by 13% overall, with the poor bearing a

disproportionate burden, particularly in the poorest parts of Sub-Saharan

Africa and Central America. Agriculture is using up more land every year -

12.5 m ha annually - a surface area the size of Greece or Nicaragua." He

goes on to say that "land is not used only to produce food - agricultural

lands also provide other goods and environmental services (e.g. habitat for

threatened species)". Additionally, he recommends the work "Feeding the

World: A Challenge for the 21st Century". He states, "our only hope is to

mobilize cutting-edge science that is multidisciplinary, and bring it to

bear on problems of tropical farming, which is mostly subsistence farming."

Hussain refers to the Future Harvest Centers of the CGIAR that are currently

working on the "how" of improving such farming. He provides two examples.

"The "Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains" is a little-known

success story (www.cgiar.org/rwc) <http://www.cgiar.org/rwc)> . Rice-wheat

rotations cover approximately 12 million hectares in South Asia, home to

hundreds of millions of rural and urban poor. Slowing cereal yields, lack of

new farmland, intense year-round cropping, and widespread resource

degradation, are some of the major factors impeding the 'sustainability' of

rice-wheat cropping systems. In fact, the areas covered by the Consortium

constitute the most intensively cropped land in the world. Five Future

Harvest Centers (CiMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, IRRI, and IWMI) are working with

national programs in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, to promote new

tillage practices (direct drilling and surface seeding) which allow farmers

to prepare soils and sow wheat in a single operation after the rice harvest.

The benefits: 75% fuel saved, higher yields, reduced application of

herbicides, and 10% less water used. The fuel savings also translate into

reduction of 1.3 million tons in emissions of CO2. Next steps are to work

with farmers on cutting down the burning of crop residues - an activity with

the potential to reduce CO2 emissions by another 17 million tons. What is

clear is that the work is anchored at 4 different levels: community,

national, regional, and international. It is necessarily multidisciplinary

(combining an understanding of trends, low-tillage methods, nutrient

management, system ecology, integrated water management, socio-economic and

policy [issues], information and knowledge-sharing, and building capacity in

terms of human and institutional resources). Most importantly, the

innovative research fulfils the criteria of "global public goods," i.e.

those technologies that depend on collective actions and provide shared

benefits."

"Drought is one of the major abiotic stresses affecting agricultural

productivity and livelihoods in the dry areas. ICARDA, based in Aleppo,

Syria, is focusing its research on developing a two-pronged strategy: (1)

working on the genetic side, using conventional and non-conventional tools,

to address production problems of crops grown in the dry areas (barley,

wheat, faba beans, lentils, etc.) and (2) improving the management of

natural resources. The benefit: powerful synergies inherent in each approach

are captured. The work takes a holistic approach-new science, GIS,

ecosystems approach, and participatory research methods - to address the

needs of more than 1 billion people who inhabit dry areas, and where

population growth rates are the highest in the world (3.6% pear year)."

Hussain adds "So do these couple of examples help to provide a

precise-enough roadmap to get us from here to there? I do not think so."

Altieri brings to our attention that "areas characterized by traditional and

peasant agriculture remain poorly served by the conventional

transfer-of-technology approach, due to its bias in favor of modern

scientific knowledge and its' neglect of local participation and traditional

knowledge." He states: "The challenge of the international agricultural

community is to refocus its efforts on marginalized farmers and their

agroecosystems and assume responsibility for the welfare of their

agriculture." This "requires an active search for new kinds of agricultural

research and resource management strategies. NGOs have long argued that a

sustainable agricultural development strategy that is environmentally

enhancing must be based on agroecological principles and on a more

participatory approach for technology development and dissemination". And

further, "agricultural research and development should operate on the basis

of a "bottom-up" approach, using and building upon the resources already

available: local people, their knowledge and their autochthonous natural

resources." He goes on to add that Agroecology "is the science that provides

ecological principles for the design and management of sustainable and

resource-conserving agricultural systems - offering several advantages for

the development of farmer-friendly technologies."

* Changing Practices, Revisiting Traditions and Empowering Farmers

Lewis says "an ancient and successful method of bio-intensive farming has

recently been 'rediscovered'. These practices were developed during the

'agricultural revolution' which occurred as early as 10,000 years ago. These

practices permitted and supported the development of ever larger, more

complex, and more successful human societies in all parts of our world.

Amongst these ancient lessons for horticulture and animal husbandry are the

following principles and practices: 1) The use of compost (humus) for soil

fertility and nutrients; 2) A whole, interrelated farming system; 3)

Synergistic planting of crop combinations so plants which are grown together

enhance each other; 4) Deep soil preparation, which develops good soil

structure; [and] 5) Close plant spacing."

"However, 'sustainable bio-intensive' farming alone (or sustainable farming

practice) is not the answer. We should consider the development of truly

sustainable agricultural practices to include a collage of: 1) Indigenous

farming; 2) Natural Rainfall 'arid' farming; 3) No-till Fukuoka food

raising, 4) Bio-intensive mini-farming, 5) Traditional Asian blue-green

algal wet rice farming; 6) Agro-forestry. We must begin by educating

ourselves, then sharing what we have learned by teaching people the

importance of growing soil."

Veeresh says "solutions to rural poverty and sustainable agriculture lie in

mobilisation of local resources and manpower for higher productivity with

non-external high cost inputs." He notes "a number of experiments in India's

120 agroclimatic zones have proved the potential of each village to become

self-sufficient in their input requirements and reduce cost of production to

increase their farm returns." He says [that] "we have to fall back to self

sustaining technologies suitable to each agroclimatic zones and not with

borrowed technologies and inputs. Some of the areas where these farmers

require knowledge and assistance [is] in post harvest technologies, value

abolition and proper marketing facilities to get reasonable price for their

produce."

Veeresh, finds many of Altieri's suggestions from Week 1 to be "very

pragmatic and the need of the hour." He states: "Results of millions of

dollars worth of World Bank agricultural projects in developing countries

have not reached the real farmer. On the other hand, these projects have

increased the burden of repayment." Veeresh offers a success story from "the

cotton belt of Karnataka, where an FAO supported, integrated pest management

project [has been] in operation in six villages. Fifty-two percent of the

total pesticides used in India are on cotton and hundreds of farmers'

suicides are from cotton growers who were unable to pay the loan borrowed on

pesticides." He states that "their project has worked wonders on farmers'

thinking, and in building confidence to beat the pests from their own stick.

An intensive training of the trainers at a cost of half a million Rupees

funded by FAO and these trainers training the farmers every week from seed

to seed and through getting every bit of the work done by the farmers has

left them as knowledgeable as the experts on cotton IPM. They could [explain

the] integrated nutrient management system (INM), integrated pest management

system (IPM) and all the beneficial and harmful insects, birds perching,

yellow traps, pheromone traps, economic thresholds, etc, etc. with all

reasons and answers for their why, where, how, when and what. It [has had] a

tremendous impact and they have now formed their own club and [are] willing

to spread knowledge to others. They are expecting a good harvest without

resorting to a single synthetic insecticide spray where they were doing

15-20 rounds of the same earlier. Therefore, there is a need for an

'alternative agricultural development approach' and an 'alternative

institutional framework' where FAO serves as 'catalyst'."

Curtis writes we "should be encouraging afforestation - permacultured

agro-forestry and perennial crops rather than annual ones. SARD at home

begins with serious implementation of "programmes that promote organic

farming, Permaculture, agro-forestry, free-range non-intensive animal

husbandry, renewable energy, appropriate technology."

Altieri notes that "through participatory approaches, the needs, aspirations

and circumstances of smallholders" must be considered such that innovations

are: 1) Input saving and cost reducing; 2) Risk reducing; 3) Expanding

toward marginal-fragile lands; 4) Congruent with peasant farming systems; 5)

Nutrition, health and environment improving."

"Special research challenges and demand appropriate technologies that are:

1) based on indigenous knowledge or rationale; 2) Economically viable,

accessible and based on local resources; 3) Environmentally sound, socially

and culturally sensitive; 4) Risk averse, adapted to farmer circumstances;

5) Enhance total farm productivity and stability"

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

of new pro-poor agricultural development approaches are the very systems

that traditional farmers have developed and/or inherited. The persistence of

millions of hectares under traditional agriculture in the from of raised

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

successful indigenous agricultural strategy and comprises a tribute to the

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

microcosms of traditional agriculture offer promising models for other areas

as they promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain

year-round yields."

"Hundreds of agroecologically-based projects were promoted by NGOs

throughout the developing world which incorporate elements of both

traditional knowledge and modern agricultural science, featuring

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

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

alternative approaches can be described as low-input technologies and

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

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

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

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

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

management."

Sukalac cautions us not to "oversimplify the debate on sustainable

development in general and sustainable agriculture specifically." She

agrees that the "blanket overuse of modern agricultural inputs is not a

solution, but neither is clinging only to indigenous practices that may

remain for lack of alternatives." She stresses that "the important thing is

maintain a wide range of alternatives (both traditional and modern), to

improve farmer access to them and to make sure the information is in place

to allow farmers to make educated decisions about what is best for their

specific circumstances." However, she recognizes that "this is not a very

satisfying solution for the large number of people frustrated by ongoing

hunger and poverty because this is a slow, long-term and incremental

process".

Ilyan, a self described optimist, feels that "it will be possible for some

Life to survive on Earth despite the worst endeavours of the overpopulating

humans. One thing needed by those who are not putting their heads in the

sand is a solar panel that will pass the ordinary sunlight that grows

plants, and converts the UV light that burns plants into electricity."

SOME PARTING COMMENTS

Hussain concluded his comments saying: "The problems are daunting in scale,

and multifaceted (economic, political, social, and environmental). For

example, there are also the intertwined issues of land reform, land tenure,

property rights, land redistribution, etc, but what is abundantly clear is

that public policy will be key to addressing the problems, and better

science, better information, can be crucial inputs for effective action. The

immediate task is to keep food, agricultural, and natural resource

management issues alive and high enough on the development totem pole, so

that donors and governments alike can take notice and give rural issues the

priority they deserve. That will be the challenge for Rio+10!"

Altieri refers us to "recent data gathered by Jules Pretty and his group at

Essex [that] demonstrates that more than 9 million households have used

agroecological approaches regenerating about 29 million hectares throughout

the developing world. This has been done with one tenth of what goes to the

CGIAR yearly (CG's budget is about 330 million)." He asks: "Isn't [it] time

that donors bet on this new approach, more cost-effective, more directly

touching the poor and with very little transactions costs?"

Lewis states: "The efforts represented through the involvement of all

persons and institutions in this electronic forum and the resulting

recommendations and programs presents reason for hope to identify and

implement solutions for the problems we address."

III. COMMENTS ON PART 2 OF THE DRAFT TASK MANAGERS' REPORT

Kishore states that "the report provides a well-balanced perspective and

touches upon all major relevant issues" and offers the following comments:

"1. The document reviews the past trends and makes strategy and policy

enunciations based on these trends. It may be useful to make long-term

projections regarding the various issues under this cluster of programmes

and identify critical areas of intervention and then recommend paradigm

shift in policies and strategies. It may be noted that on major global

environmental issues such as climate change and biodiversity conservation,

the major international initiatives were possible only after forging an

international consensus on causes and consequences based on scientific

investigation and modeling studies with several scenarios. Unfortunately,

such a consensus has yet to be evolved on the issues at hand. One of the

major thrust of the report should, therefore, on long-term assessment of the

problems for which relevant studies and establishment of an international

expert's panel could be considered (paragraphs 5 and 28 of Part I and

paragraphs 16(i) and 23(i) and (iii) of Part II)."

"2. In "Globalization affecting agriculture and land use" there is no

explicit mention of corporatization of agriculture production and marketing

systems which may have profound impact on farm employment, land use,

impoverization and pauperization of farming communities and loss of

traditional farming practices and cultures and local knowledge base. This

concern may be reflected in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Part I and paragraphs 5

and 6 of Part II."

"3. Bio-safety concerns do not find mention in the documents. It may be

useful to include some issues relating to impacts of genetically modified

seeds and organisms and intellectual property rights in this sector

(paragraphs 15 of Part I and 28(ii) of Part II)."

"4. Programmes under this cluster and particularly agriculture production

are not ends in itself. These are essentially intended for providing food

security. Safety nets for poor communities and priority for dry land

agriculture and animal husbandry in marginal and impoverished lands should

be corner stone for any strategy aimed at food security, poverty and

environmental degradation (paragraphs 27. 2) of Part I and 23 (i) of Part

II)."

"5. As regards new and additional financial resources, the existing

mechanisms have not been able to make any significant impact on flow of

enhanced funding support to anti-desertification programmes and

rehabilitation of degraded lands. In fact, over the last few years these

areas have registered decreased external flows. In order to galvanize the

issues, fresh approaches or proposals may be necessary. Generally speaking,

most of the anti-desertification and land reclamation and rehabilitation

projects are not bankable. In order to accelerate these programmes

particularly for acutely internationally debt-ridden countries and least

developed countries where these problems are most serious; there may be need

for incremental funding support to the extent that these might be made

bankable. A new window or restructuring of an existing window is needed for

financing debt-ridden and least developed countries for financing such

project for greater investment flows to these countries. This may be added

in paragraph 20 of Part II (paragraph 26 of Part I and paragraphs 20 (i) and

23 (iii) of Part II)."

"6. International NGOs have not provided as much financial and technical

commitments to programmes under this cluster when compared to other

environmental programmes such as climate change, ozone layer depletion,

biodiversity conservation, marine and coastal resources etc.. Support of

international NGOs was crucial to give these programmes a very high

visibility and critical and enhanced funding commitment at the international

level. Enhanced role of international NGOs and international support to

local NGOs and CBOs could provide a major fillip and conducive environment

to promoting enhanced anti-desertification and land rehabilitation

programmes (paragraphs 17 and 18 of Part I and 21(ii)of Part II ).

IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Parris brings an OECD report to the attention of the participants. He

states "OECD has just published a new report entitled: "Environmental

Indicators for Agriculture, Volume 3: Methods and Results". This is the

first international study to provide a comprehensive picture of the state

and trends of environmental conditions in agriculture across OECD Member

countries from the mid-1980s to the present day. Its conclusions are largely

based on a set of indicators that use a common methodology to allow

cross-country comparison of agri-environmental performance.

The Main Report, containing over 400 pages with nearly 60 tables and 100

figures (also available in French), is also available in summary form as an

Executive Summary which can be downloaded free of charge from the OECD

agri-environmental indicator website at: www.oecd.org/agr/env/indicators.htm

<http://www.oecd.org/agr/env/indicators.htm> "

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

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

We hope that we have been able to reflect the richness of the contributions

during Week 2 with all of the points covered above. The last week of

discussions has already built upon the quality of the previous interventions

of many participants.

Best regards,

The Moderators

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:50:46 +0200

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

Subject: Where Are We in the Process?

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

We would like to thank you for all of the contributions. With this message,

we would like to provide you with an update of where we are in the process.

Over the next few days, we will be sending you the Summary for Week 3.

Interventions that were received after Friday, March 23, 2001 will be

incorporated into the Summary for Week 3.

Additionally, and as we mentioned in our earliest remarks, your

contributions are providing input to ongoing meetings here at FAO in Rome.

We are currently preparing a brief summary report of interventions from the

E-Conference to provide as background to the Major Stakeholder Group

Dialogue at the SARD Forum (March 29, 2001) during the Committee on

Agriculture's 16th Session (March 26-30, 2001). We will be sending that

summary document to you as well.

Again, we are very grateful to all of you who have taken the time to

intervene on the topics at hand. We feel gratified that your experiences

and insights are providing immediate input into on-going debates here in

Rome.

With our best regards,

The Moderators

From: "Javier Rangel" <ranvier@>

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

Subject: Solicitud de Información

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:24:51

Estimado Sr. Muñoz:

Para comenzar, quisiera expresarle mi admiración por todos sus

esfuerzos para mejorar la calidad de nuestro ambiente, es muy necesario que

tomemos acción y pronto.

De igual manera quisiera contar con su apoyo ya que necesito un poco de

información referente a los siguientes temas:

* Extinción

* "Global Warming"

Espero me pueda referir a algunas páginas de internet, libros, periódicos o

reportes que me faciliten dicha información.

Entiendo que su tiempo es limitado, pero cualquier ayuda que me pueda

brindar será muy apreciada.

Saludos desde Puerto Rico!!!

Atentamente, Javier Rangel

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:57:33 +0200

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

Subject: Message 61 - Summary, Week 3 Comments

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

Dear Colleagues,

Our sincere thanks go to each of you who contributed to the dialogue during

Week 3. Herewith please find the Summary of Week 3 interventions. They are

presented as: Additional Input to Questions 3 and 4; Responses to Questions

5 and 6; Discussion of What Has Been Missing from the Dialogue; The State of

the SARD Process; Provision of Additional Information; and Comments on the

Part II of the Task Managers' Report. As always, we recognise that a summary

can not capture everything that was said in the dialogue. We therefore

refer you to the E-Conference Web Page and the Record of Contributions to

read individual interventions in full.

Best wishes,

The Moderators

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

SUMMARY, WEEK 3 COMMENTS

ADDITIONAL INPUTS ON QUESTION 3: From your perspective, what would you

identify as the root causes of the current trends and challenges for

agriculture and land?

Appleby suggests that a root cause is "pressure for cheap food". He goes on

to explain, "there is a widespread assumption that cheaper food for

consumers is unequivocally desirable. Indeed, the proportion of income that

people in 'developed countries' spend on food has declined for many years,

and this decline is generally regarded as beneficial. However, it can also

be argued that pressure for cheap food production has been a major factor in

many negative developments: unreliable farm incomes, pressures on

small-scale producers, reduced food security, concerns over food safety,

loss of competitiveness for third-world producers, problems for animal

welfare and environmental damage." Following on the remarks of Curtis,

Appleby points out the difference between 'standard of living' vs. 'cost of

living'. He notes: "'Standard of living' is often conceived too narrowly.

In this case, people often equate standard of living with COST of living. On

the contrary, people's standard of living is affected not just by the cost

of their food, but also by their assurance that it is good for them and that

its production does not damage animals, environment, other people and so

on."

Getz-Escudero writes, "From this context it is clear that civil society,

government and the private sector must wrestle with the difficult root

questions. Ten years ago only civil society was willing to talk of the

possibility that the dominant model of agricultural development was flawed.

A few years ago there was some discussion of a difference between "deep" and

"shallow" SARD in discussion between civil society and government. Today,

there is considerably more access and opportunity to broaden this debate in

the places where important policy and resource decisions are made. The

problem is that there are few intergovernmental institutions willing to go

beyond just listening, and to actively examine and advocate for solutions

that address root causes of hunger and poverty."

ADDITIONAL INPUTS ON QUESTION 4: Drawing upon your experience, what are your

proposals for action and the way forward on SARD?

Appleby follows his remarks in Question 3 by saying "So my answer to

Question 4 is: Explore ways in society and government that we can return to

what Curtis calls 'sensible prices for good quality food'."

Getz-Escudero writes, "It is important to note that SARD is a framework that

attempts to address very different food production and food security

strategies as multiple local and national strategies meet at the regional

and international level. The model of export-driven, industrial production

of commodities for world markets championed by the major exporting nations

is being questioned today by many government and even agribusiness

interests. This model is the source of the many "biases" limiting progress

towards SARD, as mentioned by one E-Conference participant. Numerous other

comments confirm the need for greater attention placed on the structure of

agriculture itself - the global production strategies of multinational

corporations, the patterns of concentrated ownership in the food and

agriculture sector, inequitable access to land, the consequences of trade

and pricing mechanisms that dislodge entire rural populations in regions

around the world - this is the proper context for debating the way forward

on SARD."

QUESTION 5. From your perspective, can you provide examples of effective and

integrated use of natural, financial and human resources for SARD at the

local, national or international levels?

Sorensen states, "Although not yet well developed at national and

international levels, there are some very positive examples of integrated

natural resources used at local levels relating to municipal composting and

urban agriculture - two fundamental aspects of achieving sustainable

resource and land use management.

Getz-Escudero says, "the best practices for SARD are first and foremost

local expressions; they are applicable across agroecosystems at larger

scales only with the active adoption and adaptation by their corresponding

local farm, rural and urban communities. Examples of local-to-local

dissemination of best practices for SARD in North America include new

cooperative market structures linking urban populations directly to farm

communities. Variously called "community supported agriculture", "local food

system" development or "community food security", these private voluntary

efforts of farmers and allied civil society groups first started with little

policy or public agency support.

Comprehensive approaches to integrating human, financial and natural

resources for sustainable agriculture include: 1) the re-integration of crop

and livestock agriculture on farms; 2) education of consumers for seasonal

and locally available foods; 3) developing partnerships between farmers

associations such as marketing cooperatives, with supportive procurement

policies from institutional food buyers such as schools and colleges,

development NGOs, etc.; 4) new policy initiatives and the promulgation of

local and state land use and food safety regulations that promote small

scale, and local processing of food; 5) development of alternative credit

programs and new sources of community-based ownership of productive lands

for agriculture; 6) education and technical assistance for producers using

sustainable land management practices (such as organic, reduced pesticide

and other ecological management); 7) integration of open space and land

conservation policies with farm preservation policy."

Lewis says, "we must bite the bullet and state facts without the gloss of

diplomatic niceties and hidden innuendo." Lewis states, from our

perspective, of effective and integrated programs of sustainable

agricultural development at the international level, there are none. This

same question asks for examples at the national level. Again, the answer

is: There are none." I would pose two examples of which I am aware. One is

in the village of Gaviotas in Columbia. The second program is the TARA

program in India. This program has developed around the idea of aquaculture

and integrated agricultural practices."

QUESTION 6. Can you provide examples of effective cooperation among diverse

stakeholders in relation to technical and/or policy areas of SARD?

Sorensen says, "I think the International Federation of Organic Agriculture

Movements (IFOAM) is the best example of a diverse constituency working

together to create technical standards and policies that in a very practical

sense positively influence SARD." (www.ifoam.org <http://www.ifoam.org)

Getz-Escudero notes, "There are indeed many examples of efforts to

coordinate human and financial resources to better manage natural resources

for SARD at local community levels. They can be found on every continent and

probably in every country. Many remain intact as resilient and complex

traditional agroecological systems, and as such, are the foundation for

local food security in most developing countries. Many combine practices

based on a mix of traditional, indigenous and new technologies. As has been

mentioned there are technical successes that are 'islands in a sea of rural

deprivation'. In many rural areas of both developing and developed countries

the crisis of economic survival is so pronounced however, that these

successes must first surmount a tremendous barrier of scepticism and

despair, and then achieve recognition for their potential and their

replicable elements. The best, most comprehensive technical solutions from

on-the-ground experience are those which are not just responsive to the

local conditions, but that are in fact generated by local farmers, allied

organizations, and local governing authorities. They are evolved from direct

experience with local market and social contexts, rather than being merely

'responsive' to local conditions. But the right questions are: Who decides?

Who takes the risk? Who benefits? These are questions of political, social

and financial equity. And they are questions that are often most elusive and

confused in the national and international debates over the future of land

management, agriculture and rural development."

Lewis refers interested participants to the Reed Program website established

at http://www.reedprogram.com <http://www.reedprogram.com>

WHAT HAS BEEN MISSING FROM THE DIALOGUE?

* The State of Land

Eswaran states, "Few can disagree on all the comments that have been made

until now. Every one is correct but I suspect that if the problems and

constraints that have been highlighted are corrected, we may make some

progress but perhaps not too great. When I look at the emphasis of all the

UN efforts, there is necessarily the human dimension (essential), there is

economics, and there are policy changes to be made. However, no one wants to

make an investment in the land resources (apart from brave words). What do

we know? 1) There are practically no developing countries with farm-level

soil maps; 2) Many of these countries do not have the necessary facilities

for support services to the farmer; 3) So the farmer is left to him/herself

while we clear forests to publish our brave notions."

He also poses some basic questions: "1). Where in a country is the degraded

land? 2). If degraded, what kind of degradation? 3) What kind of mitigation

technology is most appropriate? The problem in developing countries is that

there are too many models chasing too few data. So, my plea is to make that

effort to document the sate of the land resources. If you do not know what

you have, you will not know what you have to do."

Sukalac referring to the plea of Eswaran for informs that "IFPRI and the

World Resources Institute have recently published a joint "Pilot Analysis of

Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Agroecosystems" which includes exactly this kind

of study. The authors do point out the imperfections in the data, but note

that their report is a starting point and that satellite data should be

greatly improved in coming years as military restrictions on the precision

of satellite images available to the public have been greatly reduced (see

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/page.htm

<http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/page.htm> ).

Eswaran responds to Sukalac saying that she "is correct when she referred to

the PAGE effort of IFPRI and WRI. However, this is a global effort and so

of little use to the resource poor farmers we are trying to help. Satellite

imagery can provide the farm level information. However, there is no

institution in the developing part of the world that has the capability to

access this information. In addition remote sensed info is land surface

information. For this reason, when soil scientists make farm level maps,

they do it the old fashioned way * by auguring and digging pits. Eswaran

laments that after the "fantastic effort" to produce the soil map of the

world and the database for all the global projections that we are making

now, FAO slowly dismantled their staff and today there is only a skeleton

staff left in the Land and Water Office." He writes, "What we need today is

an effort coordinated by an organization such as FAO to build up the data

base on Land Degradation and the farm level information base."

Riley agrees with Eswaran stating that he "is certainly correct in saying

that there are few data in developing countries. But also what are available

are poorly collected using methods that are inconsistent from one country to

another. There is a need to focus on methods to assess change using good

quality information, be it quantitative, qualitative, scientific or

traditional. Examples of statistical problems in collection of indicators

for multidisciplinary impact and sustainability assessment for case studies

at project level can be seen on the website:

http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/res/depts/statistics/uniquaims/tuniquaims.html

<http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/res/depts/statistics/uniquaims/tuniquaims.html>

http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/res/depts/statistics/uniquaims/tuniquaims.html

<http://www.iacr.bbsrc.ac.uk/res/depts/statistics/uniquaims/tuniquaims.html>

The final report and other material will be included on the website before

the middle of 2001."

Upadhya, commenting on the points of Eswaran, agrees that the developing

countries do not have the factual data on what they have and the present

state of their resources - including land - for appropriate measures to be

suggested for implementation."

De la Rosa also notes that "During the last 25 years, we have been working

on rural resources survey and land evaluation. The main results are

included in the MicroLEIS system in the following Internet address:

Http://leu.irnase.csic.es <Http://leu.irnase.csic.es> . MicroLEIS system

includes a set of land evaluation tools (databases and models) able to be

used for predicting land quality and degradation indicators. As

continuation of the degradation risks prediction, impacts on crop production

and response strategies formulation are also considered in this system."

Redwood writes: "The Green Revolution failed for it did not consider

something very basic. Soil! The destruction and subsequent "ecosystem"

collapse of soil contributed significantly to that failure."

Plant Science

Fedoroff says, "I have seen almost no discussion of how to put the

discoveries of contemporary plant science to work to improve the many, many

plants that serve people as food sources. What we face is improving the

productivity of many different plants under many different stressful

conditions, with a minimum of expensive inputs, as well as decreasing

post-harvest losses under suboptimal storage conditions-a far cry from the

"simple" solutions of the Green Revolution.

And yet, at the same time, plant research is beginning to yield insights at

the molecular level into every level of plant development and productivity,

including how plants resist stress and what genetic changes underlie the

transformation of a wild plant into a productive food crop. These insights

can, if used wisely, augment efforts to increase productivity while

minimizing negative ecological impacts. It seems to me that connecting

plant scientists with local groups that understand local needs and problems

is an important a step in the right direction, but one that receives little

attention or resources. How might we do better?"

Food Prices

Appleby "I have kept quiet until now because my experience is largely

limited to Europe, but there is one vital issue that has hardly been

mentioned that I believe needs emphasizing: that of food prices." (See

response to Question 3 above)

Further discussions on the Agroecosystems

Sukalac, commenting on Altieri states, "there were many points I agree with

in this message, especially the need to combat rural poverty, to take into

account traditional knowledge as a base, to manage natural resources wisely,

to adopt participatory, bottom-up approaches, and so on. His intervention

does raise many questions in my mind as well. As he states, traditional

methods are persistent in many, often marginal, farmlands. But is this a

testament to their success or to the lack of access to inputs and thus lack

of choices of these farmers? I suspect that the answer varies from case to

case. I also wonder if this persistence is a sign of success of this

strategy? Do we know what proportion of farmers using solely these methods

have been unsuccessful? As many of these leave rural areas, they perhaps

eliminate the proof of their failed attempts. What is the time frame for the

output levels quoted by Mr. Altieri? Of the long-term studies I am aware

of, the best performing systems over the long-term were integrated farming

systems that incorporate traditional practices but use modern inputs as

needed. In my view, part of natural resource management should be seeking to

optimize production on good agricultural lands, being ever mindful to

maintain soil fertility, and to avoid, where possible, the use of marginal

lands for agriculture."

De la Rosa, following the remarks on previous interventions relative to

sustainable agricultural strategies, agroecological principles, and

participative approaches for innovation development and dissemination, notes

"Following this framework, it will be possible to establish the

agroecological limits of sustainability, in any particular case and

independent of the input level. In other words, to formulate site specific

farming systems that can help to solve the big problems of our world:

poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation. "

Munoz states he "agrees with the general view of where the roots of

development should be (locally based)" however, he offers the following

comments: a) the issue how to go back to locally based development enhanced

by appropriate, cost-efficient, and unbiased external factors; b) true

development must address a series of biases including technological bias,

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

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

export bias; food security has two components, production (supply) and

consumption (demand), d) access to technology is the factor that links

production and development, and the production side environmental impacts

(FAO and CGIAR domains); e) access to income is the factor that links

consumption and development, and the consumption side environmental impacts

(the World Bank domain); and f) the heart of the food security and

development dilemma is EQUALITY as equality affects the distribution of

production, access to technology and therefore the supply side of

development; and equality affects the distribution of consumption, access to

income, and therefore the demand side of development.

Upadhya writes that Altieri and Lewis "have touched points that are in

discussion in most of the developing countries. BUT who will bell the cat

who will make the governments do what Brian rightly says. Corruption has

penetrated to the core of existence in all the countries and to get the four

afflictions uprooted from these societies will be a hard if not impossible

task." He states, "Middleman reaps the maximum benefit. How can poverty be

eliminated when society is a parasite on the poor? Secondly the post harvest

management is so poorly developed that substantial portion of the produce is

lost. Thirdly at the site of production there are no avenues for the

producers to add value to his produce. Furthermore, the resource poor farmer

can not depend on the governments to look after his interests. The resource

poor farmer is not treated as the foundation stone of the society who toils

to feed and cloth all and needs support for him to care for posterity. In

the discussions therefore, let us have a hard look at the post-harvest

issues, appropriate shares to the producer (for the resource poor farmer,

the Grameen movement in Bangladesh is one step in that direction) and the

stock of resources."

Araujo states, "the questions this week are provocative and

a really good opportunity for NGO's, labor movements and others in

developing countries working directly with people to express their opinions

and show their enormous contribution to local and global development."

Araujo states, "In Northeast Brazil, NGOs and rural labor movements have

developed remarkable techniques and sustainable agricultural procedures and

formulated strategies to insert some of their experiences into public

policies. Concrete solutions are being tested and disseminated by small

farmers with NGOs support. One of them is the cistern made of pre-molded

blocks. The cistern is a rain water catchment and storage system, which

provides clean water for domestic use year round. This technology is

especially useful for disperse rural communities that suffer from the

effects of periodic drought. It greatly improves the quality of life of

rural families, especially women who are traditionally responsible for

collecting water and children who suffer most from water-borne disease."

Unlike large scale reservoir construction, irrigation projects and other

water resource augmentation strategies that mostly benefit agri-business,

this technology are inexpensive, ecologically sound and benefits small

farmers directly. Government at the local and national level has already

begun to install this technology in some municipalities as part of a drought

relief program. Still, it needs to be extended to benefit more families.

(See www.ircsa.com.br/semana/contatos.htm

<http://www.ircsa.com.br/semana/contatos.htm> ,

www.cptsa.embrapa.br/start_inicio.html

<http://www.cptsa.embrapa.br/start_inicio.html> )

Local Agenda 21 Processes

Ecimovic (with Stuhler, Elohimjl, Mayur, Vezjak, Bartak, Kulic) remarks,

"Coming from RIO Summit - The Agenda 21 For Change" has been major document.

Even before and as well as after RIO 1992, we have been working on Local

Agenda 21 Processes. The purpose of the local agenda 21 processes is

supradisciplinary approach for sustainable development of the local

community as a path for sustainable future. The implications of pursuing the

objective of local sustainable development is an interesting

supradisciplinary area not only for politicians but also for

supradisciplinary teaching and research."

THE STATE OF THE SARD PROCESS

Getz-Escudero writes, "the exchanges of information have been most

intriguing and helpful for evaluating the way forward on SARD at many

levels. As can be seen from several who have contributed as NGO/farmer

participants in the processes leading to SARD from the early 1990s, to

efforts at implementing SARD from 1992 up through to the present, there are

many observations to make in response to the questions of this E-Conference.

Because of the limits on time and space, these remarks will be brief.

For a more complete representation of some of the positions reflected here,

I refer to the document, the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Caucus

input to the FAO Task Managers for SARD in January, 2001 entitled "The

Perspective on SARD From the Ground Up" (sent to be attached to the record

of contributions) as well as to the NGO Paper on SARD for CSD8 which can be

found in the background documents for this E-Conference.

The FAO Task Managers' Report does point to multistakeholder cooperation on

SARD as the most significant development since Rio (Part II, paragraph 24,

iv.). In fact, the practice of multistakeholder policy development processes

in SARD is still very new. The experience from the April, 2000

Multistakeholder Dialogue on SARD during CSD-8 has been the most

far-reaching policy dialogue yet held among major groups of civil society

and governments. The opportunity is strong to move beyond sharpening the

differences among regions and major groups, toward achieving bold policy

initiatives that overcome the obstacles to resolution of critical issues on

land and agriculture management, trade, technology and land tenure. But it

will indeed take a level of understanding, compromise, and political will

that has not yet been seen."

Sorensen writes, "In the last ten years since Rio, thousands of papers have

been written and millions of ideas have been put forward as to how to

address agricultural and environmental devastation across the globe. The

problem is, however, that many of the possible solutions have not been taken

seriously or further explored. Like others have commented, there are

positive examples like community supported agriculture and box schemes that

provide for stewardship of the environment, and we should emphasize the

importance of these practices. We cannot afford to continue devoting

expansive resources to meeting after meeting, when the solutions are both

tangible and clear, and when time is running short.

Humans can take control of their actions, especially in an agricultural

context. It is not that complicated. It is tiresome to continuously see the

way in which the environmental power brokers analyze the situation. I see no

need to further complicate the issue by positing new and untested

theoretical analyses. We have to take action. There is no more time. Our

waters are terribly polluted from agricultural chemicals and we have

incredible resource sinks. The green revolution was a horrible mistake, and

we have to right this wrong by supplanting the use of petrochemicals in

agriculture with compost. It really is that simple. And if you drive a car,

you are equally contributing to the earth's environmental destruction as

well. We have to quit "beating around the bush," and start speaking the

truth."

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Xiaoping of the Soils and Fertilizers Institute (SFI) of the Chinese Academy

of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) has offered a document for the information

of participants, entitled "Construction Industry Affect Sustainable

Development of Land and Agriculture".

Hamilton has offered the participants a study she conducted last year on

collaboration between Non-Governmental Organizations and the Private Sector

in developing countries. She indicates that the information fits the

afternoon session on how government, civil society and the private sector

planned during the SARD Forum at COAG.

Her paper profiles different kinds of partnerships and lays out some

mechanisms that can make progress in building effective partnerships. She

has also provided information recently received on the digital divide and

that lays out steps the G-8 can take to encourage these new forms of

partnership.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON PART II OF THE TASK MANAGERS' REPORT

In Boulharouf's view:

1) The CCD derives its origin from a direct recommendation of the UNCED

Summit, as such is the only legally binding instrument of the so called Rio

Generation Conventions covered by this reporting process, to stem from a

direct recommendation of Agenda 21 (Chapter 12, paragraph 40). Its

implementation process should therefore, in our view, benefit from a special

attention from the Rio plus ten Conference. In this regard, the issue of

National reports submitted by CCD country parties to the COP constitutes one

of the most reliable indicators of both the pace and the quality of its

implementation process. Accordingly, part I of the draft report should

present a more in depth review of this process. In its present form, the

draft report only refers to it in a foot note form in page 4. It is in our

view important to underline that, despite limited resources (the CCD does

not have access to GEF funds under "enabling activities") country parties,

particularly affected developing parties, responded in an outstanding way to

this formal requirement. To this day more than 175 reports have been

submitted, which in the light of the prevailing financial conditions

outlined above, constitute a real achievement and reflects the level of

commitment of parties to this process. Furthermore, the CCD reporting

process offered the opportunity to show the efficiency of inter-agency

cooperation in the implementation process of the Convention. It is to be

noted in this respect that UNEP made a significant financial contribution to

assist African countries in the elaboration of their respective reports. We

would therefore like to suggest the following wording to complete paragraph

17:

"By the end of 2000, 175 reports on the measures taken to implement the

Convention have been submitted to the Conference of the Parties by the

affected countries, donor countries, international, intergovernmental and

non-governmental organizations. These reports provide detailed information

on the strategies and priorities established within the framework of

sustainable development; institutional measures; participatory processes in

support of the preparation and implementation of the action programmes and

consultative processes in support of the launching of the implementation of

the national action programmes."

The reference to the Ad hoc Working Group is factual and well balanced and

should therefore be kept as presented in the text but as a paragraph rather

than a foot note.

2. The report rightfully underlines the essential role played by the NGO

community in all matters pertaining to the promotion of sustainable

development, this is particularly true for fragile arid ecosystems.

Accordingly, the CCD has given an unprecedented role to civil society by

embodying, in the text of the convention, the concept of "participatory

approach". Furthermore, and aware of the unique expertise that lays within

the civil society, the Conference of the Parties has decided to dedicate at

least two half days of its scheduled plenary sessions for an interactive

debate on the CCD implementation process between Government representatives

and NGOs, confirming thereby the priority given to the non governmental

input in this process. Finally, it has to be noted that country parties that

have submitted their report have established national coordinating bodies

for the elaboration of their National Action programmes (NAPs) where NGOs

are fully associated and plays an active role. As this specific issue was

raised under item 3 of "Gaps ands Issues", it would be important to note

that such coordination mechanism are being actively foreseen within the

implementation process of one of the majors legally binding instruments

called for by Agenda 21.

3. The draft report (part II) rightfully points out under "Mobilizing

additional means for the land and agriculture cluster and related

capacity-building efforts" that the difficulties in mobilizing funds for the

implementation of the CCD are symptomatic of a general decrease in funds

allocation to activities pertaining to the promotion of sustainable

development in fragile ecosystems. This is particularly true regarding the

CCD, mainly because of a severe lack of financial predictability. The CCD is

indeed, the only one of the so-called Rio Conventions that does not have

access to a centralized financial mechanism for its implementation (like the

GEF for the UNFCCC and CBD Conventions). Although it is true that, as stated

in your draft report (part I), "Over the last five years or so, GEF has been

giving increased importance to land degradation in the context of climate

change and loss of bio-diversity", it is also necessary to point out that

the progress achieved through the "New Delhi Statement" was of a rather

limited nature in terms of bringing a much needed financial additionality to

the implementation process of the UNCCD. Indeed, it is important to

underline here that the analysis of the indirect approach pursued so far by

GEF, since its New Delhi Assembly, of linking land degradation to its focal

areas, reveals that there are inherent constraints in this modality that

have limited the actual resources allocated. The total direct resources

assigned for land degradation activities amount to a mere 1.5% of the total

funds assigned to all the focal areas. It is essentially for this reason

that the GEF Council requested its CEO to explore modalities for the best

options to enhance the support of the Facility in assisting affected

countries, particularly those in Africa, in implementing the United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), taking into account the third

replenishment. The fourth session of the Conference of the Parties to the

CCC also acknowledged the Council decision and requested its Executive

Secretary to follow-up and report to the Parties on this important issue.

4. By opposite to its two other sister conventions (UNFCCC and CBD) the CCD

cannot rely on "physical" parameters for the monitoring of its

implementation process. This is the rational behind the regional approach

chosen by the convention, which relies on its Regional Implementation

Annexes for the purpose of assessing implementation. Under these

circumstances, the National Action Programmes (NAPs), the Sub-Regional

Action Programmes (SRAPs) and the Regional Action Programmes (RAPs) are not

only extremely important instruments for the effective implementation of the

convention but do also constitute very reliable tools for measuring the

efficiency and success of its implementation process. We therefore believe

that a more detailed reference to the NAPs, SRAPs and RAPs should also be

made. We are therefore providing for your consideration the following

wording:

"Several affected developing countries have initiated consultative processes

that aim at identifying ways and means of enhancing the implementation of

the Convention by integrating or harmonizing the National Action Programmes

with social and economic development planning frameworks as expressed in the

NAP process. This should be done while maintaining the integrity of the

drylands concerns. Given their limited resources, the affected developing

countries have indicated the need for a structured support from their

international partners.

External partners need to review their funding policies and procedures in

order to allow the flexibility of programmes and activities resulting from

the integration process.

At the sub-regional level, various consultations have led to the

identification, formulation and adoption of Sub-Regional Action Programmes

(SRAPs). These programmes aim at identifying common interests and maximizing

cooperation between neighboring countries sharing natural resources.

At the regional level, the affected developing countries have identified

priority activities, which lay the foundation for the Regional Action

Programmes. The programmes aim at strengthening regional potential for

information management, capacity building, research / development and

technology exchanges, notably through the channels provided by thematic

programme networks. The work for the preparation of Regional Thematic

Programmes in Africa and in Asia, focusing inter alia on sustainable land

use management; sustainable management and use of rangelands; development of

sustainable agricultural and ranching production systems; Desertification

monitoring and assessment; strengthening capacities in the areas of

combating Desertification and mitigating the effects of drought; integrated

management of water resources and development of new and renewable energy

sources and technologies has also started.

At the inter-regional level the African, Asian and Latin America and the

Caribbean regions have initiated South-South cooperation schemes supported

by development partners which aim at enhancing implementation of the

Convention through exchange of experiences, knowledge and technologies."

5. The draft report (Part I) states under "Gaps and issues" at the

international levels that "Our understanding of the mechanisms and factors

affecting Desertification and drought is limited". This is true as it is for

the other global environmental issues, particularly climate change.

Accordingly, as for all global environmental issues, we should always

recommend the application of the UNCED agreed "precautionary principle".

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:59:57 +0200

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

Subject: Message 62 - From the Moderators

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

As your moderators, we would like to thank you most sincerely for joining us

on this E-conference and for your dedication to the process. You have been

very generous with your ideas and insights. We are grateful to you for

taking time from your busy schedules to be a part of this activity. Your

contributions ARE the conference and its results.

A few words about what is next on the general agenda:

1) Over the next weeks, we will be following up on some activities from this

E-conference as well as the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue at the SARD Forum

held in Rome on March 29th, 2001.

2) In the near future, we will post on the web site the Chair's Summary

Report of the dialogue at the SARD Forum amongst the representatives of five

Major Groups identified in Agenda 21 - Business and Industry, Farmers,

Indigenous Peoples, Non-Governmental Grganizations, and Workers and Trade

Unions - and with the informal participation of government representatives.

We will also be posting individual interventions and examples of cases that

were presented during the Forum.

3) We will be making your corrections to Part 2 of the Task Managers' Report

on Agriculture and Land and finalizing that document for submission to the

Commission on Sustainable Development.

4) We will be putting together a roadmap for the future: "On the Road to

Rio+10".

Finally, we have a few additional items to ask of you. Firstly, let us know

how we did. We would be most grateful if you would be willing to send us a

message to let us know what we could have done better - both in terms of

process and content - so we can improve these events in the future.

Secondly, we would ask that you stay subscribed to the E-conference list so

that we may send you updates from time to time concerning future activities

relative to the Rio+10 process. If you do wish to unsubscribe, however, the

directions are at the bottom of this message. Thirdly, we ask that you keep

checking the web site occasionally, as we will continue to expand it and

establish new linkages to other sites and information as we move toward the

World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.

Please note that your contributions to the E-conference were very important

in influencing the outcome of the Multistakeholder Dialogue as well as in

revising the Task Managers' Report. The participants in the SARD Forum all

benefited from a summary version of the conference.

Again, we would like to express our whole-hearted thanks. It has been

delightful working with you.

Best regards,

Your Moderators

Tom Forster (CSD NGO Causcus)

Constance Neely (SANREM)

Thomas Price (FAO)

To unsubscribe:

If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a message to:

mailserv@mailserv.fao.org <mailto:mailserv@mailserv.fao.org>

leaving the subject header blank, write in the message: unsubscribe Rio10-L

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:04:23 +0200

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

Subject: Message 63 - "Summary of Summaries"

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

Dear E-Colleagues:

This is the brief "Summary of Summaries" that we shared with the

participants in the SARD Forum on 29 March 2001.

With our regards, the Moderators

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

Toward Rio+10 and Beyond: Progress in Land and Agriculture

Electronic Conference - Summary Points of Discussion

This document provides a brief summary of interventions from the

E-Conference held from March 5 to 23, 2001. The key headings include

Trends, Challenges and Root Causes; Cooperation, Partnerships, and Support;

and Actions and The Way Forward. To reivew the full interventions, you are

invited to visit the E-Conference web site at

http://www.fao.org/PRODS/SARD/RIO10/econf-en.htm

<http://www.fao.org/PRODS/SARD/RIO10/econf-en.htm> . Under the Record of

Contributions, you will find the individual interventions as well as weekly

summaries.

1. TRENDS, CHALLENGES, AND ROOT CAUSES

Food Stocks and Hunger

* Despite increases in food production, food insecurity in the

developing world is prevalent. This is "linked to massive poverty, mal

distribution of land, and the pressures of globalisation that emphasize agro

exports away from basic food crops" Altieri, Science and Technology, North

America.

* "The green revolution technologies have become 'islands of success'

in a 'sea of deprivation'. Thirty percent of farmers who have access to

green revolution technologies contributed to the buffer stock of the India

while 70% of farming, coming under dry land agriculture has not been

influenced by these costly, high input technologies. The high input, energy

intensive, corporate style agriculture is not only non-remunerative to these

farmers but will further erode the fragile ecosystem natural resources and

aggravate rural poverty." Veeresh, NGO, Asia

* "Poverty will only be alleviated if and when we realize the

seriousness of hunger in the developing world. We want to improve technology

to increase production forgetting that the poor farmer cannot afford our

technology. When people are hungry they only think about food and how to

survive and nothing else." Lundall-Magnuson, Science and Technology, Africa

* "Although we live in a country where we export diamonds, gold, wine,

table grapes etc, there are still thousands of people that do not have

enough to eat or suffer from malnutrition." Albertse, Science and

Technology, Africa

* "A root cause is "pressure for cheap food". There is a widespread

assumption that cheaper food for consumers is unequivocally desirable.

Indeed, the proportion of income that people in 'developed countries' spend

on food has declined for many years, and this decline is generally regarded

as beneficial. However, it can also be argued that pressure for cheap food

production has been a major factor in many negative developments: unreliable

farm incomes, pressures on small-scale producers, reduced food security,

concerns over food safety, loss of competitiveness for third-world

producers, problems for animal welfare and environmental damage." Appleby,

Science and Technology, North America

Small Farmers

* "Small farmers keep being bypassed by modern agricultural advances

and trends now fueled by biotechnology are enhancing monocultures and

leading to a further industrialization of agriculture." Altieri, Science and

Technology, North America.

* "The real question of human dignity and participation remains, for

the most part, ignored and unaddressed"; Lewis, NGO, Europe

Distribution of Resources

* "The problem is one of economics and the distribution of both

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

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

for the 'developing' (a misnomer if ever there was one) countries to have an

increase in their standard of living (not to be confused with quality of

life - the two are quite separate) then the resources must be returned to

their control." Curtis, NGO, Europe

* "The Wealth is 'trapped' in the developed countries and governments

in developed countries must maintain the living standards of their

constituents." Robinson, Australia

* Governments of affluent countries will never willingly carry out any

actions that will realistically infringe upon the standard of living of the

voting population of their respective countries." Curtis, NGO, Europe

* "There are legitimate concerns regarding environmental implications

of liberal investment prescribed in the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT) rules. GATT resulted in an agreement that globalizes the

agriculture sector. Agricultural support policies have been taken away from

unilateral policy making and brought under multilateral rule. Trade-Related

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may escalate the imbalance

against developing countries by restricting access to new technology.

Measures to strengthen technology transfer and diffusion through the

encouragement of local innovation and technological development are needed

and environmental measures should not be used by developed countries as new

protectionist measures." Ayoki, Science and Technology, Africa

Policies and Poverty

* "Policies originally followed to address poverty and environmental

degradation led to increased poverty and increased environmental

degradation." Subsequently globalisation has intensified these problems."

Munoz, Science and Technology, North America

* "Short term goals; lack of adequate funding; failure to use

inclusive programs which bring into the planning and implementation the

rural poor; too close ties with large agro-business; lack of sensitivity to

local conditions; failure to provide for education and support; failure to

provide sufficient infrastructural support; and lack of political resolve."

Lewis, NGO, Europe

* "Rather than undertaking programs that would have developed the

capacity of these many people to improve their lives and to encourage them

to participate in the growth and development of their countries and of the

world economy, these international forces (e.g. governments and UN bodies)

prevented and precluded the establishment of such important programs."

Lewis, NGO, Europe

* "Poverty, population growth, natural resource depletion and

environmental degradation are linked in a vicious cycle. Many poor countries

are struggling to overcome widespread poverty and destitution, including

food shortages, unemployment, inadequate housing, stagnating or even falling

standards of health and education, inadequate infrastructure, and escalating

public indebtedness." Ayoki, Science and Technology, Africa

* "All of the research has already been done, over the last 30 years

pretty much all of the solutions have been devised and tested - what is

holding back implementation of sustainable agriculture is the lack of

political will, and the surplus of consumer ignorance and apathy." Curtis,

NGO, Europe

* "True development from inside out (local supported by non-local) can

not take place unless we address a series of biases, which I believe most of

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

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

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

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

sources of unsustainability." Munoz, Research and Technology, North America

* "From this context it is clear that civil society, government and

the private sector must wrestle with the difficult root questions. Ten years

ago only civil society was willing to talk of the possibility that the

dominant model of agricultural development was flawed. The problem is that

there are few intergovernmental institutions willing to go beyond just

listening, and to actively examine and advocate for solutions that address

root causes of hunger and poverty." Getz-Escudero, NGO, North America

* "Agricultural policy designs are dominated by the powerfully linked

but narrower interests of industry, urban markets and trade." Getz-Escudero,

NGO, North America

Other Issues

* Global warming is leading to changes in seasonal variations and the

loss of better farming lands (e.g. submersion, salinization, loss of

topsoil, contamination of water sources, overgrazing) Curtis, NGO, Europe

* "When I look at the emphasis of all the UN efforts, there is

necessarily the human dimension (essential), there is economics, and there

are policy changes to be made. However, no one wants to make an investment

in the land resources (apart from brave words). What do we know? 1.) There

are practically no developing countries with farm-level soil maps; 2.) Many

of these countries do not have the necessary facilities for support services

to the farmer; 3.) So the farmer is left to him/herself while we clear

forests to publish our brave notions. My plea is to make that effort to

document the sate of the land resources. If you do not know what you have,

you will not know what you have to do." Eswaran, Science and Technology,

North America

* "AIDS/HIV has had significant adverse effects on parameters such as

household demographic composition, labour and income. These in turn affect

food production, education, cropping patterns, livestock production, labour

allocation, access to productive assets, and consumption of goods and

services." Ayoki, Science and Technology, Africa

2. COOPERATION, PARTNERSHIPS AND SUPPORT

* "It is time that the UN provides the political support for an

alternative agricultural development approach, engaging in a real

partnership with NGOs, farmers organizations, environmental groups and

consumer groups in the search for a more socially just and economically

viable agriculture." FAO can serve as a " catalyst distributing funds to

those organizations including NGOs and farmers organizations committed to

delivering solutions". Altieri, Science and Technology, North America

* "There have been voices calling on FAO to take greater leadership in

advancing the interests and rights of the majority of people working the

land as small holders, the landless and farm workers." Getz-Escudero, NGO,

North America

* "The World Bank should channel funds through SARD to stabilise it

and coordinate efforts with FAO formally; this way we are dealing with both

the supply side and the demand side of SARD at the same time putting local

consumers in better footing as compared to non-local consumers." Munoz,

Science and Technology, North America

* "Government should find ways not to decrease numbers of R&D

institutes, it should work out proper funds and projects, international

cooperation to intensify R&D works in agricultural sector on e.g.

sustainable growth." Dubowski, Science and Technology, Eastern Europe

* FAO is called upon "to take greater leadership in advancing the

interests and rights of the majority of people working the land as small

holders, the landless and farm workers." Getz-Escudero, NGO, North America

* "Over the past ten years the voices of civil society have grown

stronger and clearer that a more inclusive and holistic framework is vital

for the sustainability of agriculture and balanced rural development. They

call for a more equitable structuring of interests with real consequence in

land and agriculture" Getz-Escudero, NGO, North America

* "The United Nations organizations spend millions of dollars in all

the fancy programs. But the farmers of the tropics see little or no impact.

Sustainable agriculture is a farce for the poor farmers of the tropics.

Unless you bite the bullet and approach the subject realistically, we are

all wasting our time." Eswaran, Science and Technology, North America

* "From my point of view, food security has two components, production

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

of food security is affected by them; access to technology is the factor

that links production and development, and the production side environmental

impacts (this is the FAO, CGIAR domain); access to income is the factor that

links consumption and development, and the consumption side environmental

impacts (This is the World Bank domain)" Munoz, Science and Technology,

North America

* Altieri, Science and Technology, North America asks: "Isn't [it]

time that donors bet on this new approach (agroecological approaches), more

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

transactions costs?"

* There was general agreement that solutions must include developed

and developing countries, and the range from the most marginal to the most

resource-rich and/or intensive agro-ecosystems.

3. ACTIONS & THE WAY FORWARD

General Remarks

* "The best practices for SARD are first and foremost local

expressions; they are applicable across agroecosystems at larger scales only

with the active adoption and adaptation by their corresponding local farm,

rural and urban communities. Variously called 'community supported

agriculture', 'local food system' development or 'community food security',

these private voluntary efforts of farmers and allied civil society groups

first started with little policy or public agency support." Getz-Escudero,

NGO, North America

* Altieri, Science and Technology, North America, states that "there

are many examples of farmer-led and NGO led agroecological initiatives that

have resulted in enhanced food security and environmental conservation

regeneration. He calls for an operational definition of Sustainable

Agriculture that gives priority to the urban and rural poor and emerging

from the grassroots and not from the international organizations."

* Seck, NGO, Africa, reports on local partnerships between the

Senegalese Federation of NGOs, community organizations, government agencies

and FAO to achieve decentralised planning, sustainable agriculture,

nutrition and rural extension.

* Ripetti, NGO in Africa, cites examples of successful participatory

land management and planning in peri-urban conditions in Senegal.

* According to Lewis, NGO, Europe "What is needed, as indicated by the

many responses to our conference, is a program that is suitable for the

local conditions and which also presents opportunities for replication and

further development both at the sites of initial implementation and in other

areas as well."

* Lewis draws on concrete examples from: sustainable agriculture at

the local level in Gaviotas, Colombia; aquaculture and integrated

agricultural practices in the TARA program in India; and the REED program of

water and aquaculture management as a pilot, demonstration site in the

developed world in Vietnam.

* Sorensen, NGO, North America, cited positive examples of integrated

natural resources use at local levels relating to municipal composting and

urban agriculture - two fundamental aspects of achieving sustainable

resource and land use management.

* Altieri, Science and Techology, North America refers us to "recent

data gathered by Jules Pretty and his group at Essex [that] demonstrates

that more than 9 million households have used agroecological approaches

regenerating about 29 million hectares throughout the developing world.

* Getz-Escudero, NGO, North America, further stated that:

"Comprehensive approaches to integrating human, financial and natural

resources for sustainable agriculture include: 1. the re-integration of

crop and livestock agriculture on farms; 2. education of consumers for

seasonal and locally available foods; 3. developing partnerships between

farmers associations such as marketing cooperatives, with supportive

procurement policies from institutional food buyers such as schools and

colleges, development NGOs, etc.; 4. new policy initiatives and the

promulgation of local and state land use and food safety regulations that

promote small scale, and local processing of food; 5. development of

alternative credit programs and new sources of community-based ownership of

productive lands for agriculture; 6. education and technical assistance for

producers using sustainable land management practices (such as organic,

reduced pesticide and other ecological management); 7. integration of open

space and land conservation policies with farm preservation policy. "

* "The most important thing is to maintain a wide range of

alternatives (both traditional and modern), to improve farmer access to them

and to make sure the information is in place to allow farmers to make

educated decision about what is best for their specific circumstances."

Sukalac, Business and Industry, Europe

Inclusiveness of All

* Action must bring together all actors to find and apply solutions to

the major challenges for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.

* Lewis says, "We must establish a way in which we include people, all

people, their ideas, their beliefs, their experience and history."

* Sukalac, Business and Industry,Europe, noted improved collaboration

amongst international organizations, NGOs and other third parties in a

recent encounter between African agricultural producer organizations and

representatives of agricultural input companies in Paris: "The key is to

empower local communities to take the best decisions for them locally and to

ensure that the means exist for putting these home-grown strategies into

practice."

* Elohimjl, Science and Technology, Europe, emphasises the importance

of inter-disciplinarity in approaches in order to arrive at sustainable

solutions to the challenges in rural development.

* Munoz, Science and Technology, North America, agreed with the

general direction of discussions favouring locally based development

enhanced by appropriate, cost-efficient, and unbiased external factors.

Solutions address issues of equality/equity, balance between production and

consumption, and the need to address problems of enduring poverty. Sukalac

notes that we must assess the genuine requirements of smallholder farmers

especially in marginal farmlands to offer viable technical and social

solutions. Araujo, NGO, Latin America, shares the example of local

technology transfer in water harvesting and use in northeast Brazil.

* Getz-Escudero notes that "the experience from the April, 2000

Multistakeholder Dialogue on SARD during CSD-8 has been the most

far-reaching policy dialogue yet held among major groups of civil society

and governments. The opportunity is strong to move beyond sharpening the

differences among regions and major groups, toward achieving bold policy

initiatives that overcome the obstacles to resolution of critical issues on

land and agriculture management, trade, technology and land tenure. But it

will indeed take a level of understanding, compromise, and political will

that has not yet been seen."

Information and Infrastructure

* Holst, Science and Technology, Europe, remarks that "modern

information technology has a large potential for teaching farmers and

traders with the latest news on pest management (early warnings, integrated

solutions) and market prices." There was much emphasis on the potential for

modern information technology to play a crucial role, but also the need to

make these technologies available and useful to resource-poor farmers.

* Albertse, Science and Technology, Africa, providing an example from

South Africa notes, "giving land to people is not always the solution to

poverty alleviation. This action must be supported by allocation of

development capital, extension service and training." Ownership, access and

investment were viewed as key to unlocking the potential in smallholders in

developing countries.

Science

* Altieri, Science and Technology, North America, brings to our

attention that "areas characterised by traditional and peasant agriculture

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

due to its bias in favour of modern scientific knowledge and its' neglect of

local participation and traditional knowledge."

* Hussain, Science and Technology, North America, emphasised new

strategies in the CGIAR system on farmer-research relations and cited

experiences in the field including dry lands agriculture with ICARDA to

rice-wheat intensive cropping with IRRI, IFPRI, CIMMYT and other centres.

* Veeresh, NGO, Asia, says "solutions to rural poverty and sustainable

agriculture lie in mobilisation of local resources and manpower for higher

productivity with non-external high cost inputs."

* Eswaran, Science and Technology, North America, and Sukalac, state

the need for better data on the state of land resources. And Riley, Science

and Technology, Europe, agrees that there are few data in developing

countries, which are also poorly collected using methods that are

inconsistent from one country to another. There is a need to focus on

methods to assess change using good quality information, be it quantitative,

qualitative, scientific or traditional. Upahdya, Science and Technology,

Latin America, agrees that the developing countries do not have the factual

data on what they have and the present state of their resources - including

land - for appropriate measures to be suggested for implementation.

* Riley and Diego de la Rosa, Science and Technology, Europe, cite

existing data collection and dissemination systems that constitute a basis

for such informational and analytical sources for developing countries.

* Fedoroff, Science and Technology, North America, points to the need

"to put the discoveries of contemporary plant science to work to improve the

many, many plants that serve people as food sources in order to improve the

productivity of many different plants under many different stressful

conditions, with a minimum of expensive inputs, as well as to decrease

post-harvest losses under sub-optimal storage conditions." She also

stresses the revolutionary implications - and possibilities - at the

molecular level of work on plants.

* Altieri notes that "through participatory approaches, the needs,

aspirations and circumstances of smallholders" must be considered such that

innovations are: 1) Input saving and cost reducing; 2) Risk reducing; 3)

Expanding toward marginal-fragile lands; 4) Congruent with peasant farming

systems; 5) Nutrition, health and environment improving. Special research

challenges and demand appropriate technologies that are: 1) based on

indigenous knowledge or rationale; 2) Economically viable, accessible and

based on local resources; 3) Environmentally sound, socially and culturally

sensitive; 4) Risk averse, adapted to farmer circumstances; 5) Enhance total

farm productivity and stability"

* For all participants, mobilising cutting edge science that works

with farmers and their constraints and knowledge is key. This means

"changing practices, revisiting traditions and empowering farmers".

And, in Conclusion

* "The immediate task is to keep food, agricultural, and natural

resource management issues alive and high enough on the development totem

pole, so that donors and governments alike can take notice and give rural

issues the priority they deserve. That will be the challenge for Rio+10!"

Hussain, Science and Technology, North America

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:06:50 +0200

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

Subject: Message 64 - From the Task Managers for "Agriculture and Land" in

Agenda 21.

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

Dear Colleagues,

We wish to thank you sincerely for participating so thoroughly and

thoughtfully in this E-Conference on "Looking Forward to Rio+10: Reporting

Progress on Land and Agriculture". We appreciate that each of you has taken

time from busy schedules to bring insights to this forum.

We are very pleased that your efforts have contributed directly to Part II

of the Task Managers' Report on chapters 10, 12, and 14 as well as to the

Major Stakeholder Group Dialogue at the SARD Forum (29 March 2001)

concurrent to the FAO Committee on Agriculture16th Session (26-30 March

2001).

We wish also to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of your

moderators during this E-Conference - Tom Forster, Constance Neely and

Thomas Price. We appreciate their hard work in ensuring the effective

moderation and timely capture of the quality of the deliberations.

The next steps in preparation for "World Summit on Sustainable Development"

(Rio+10) (http://www.un.org/rio%2b10/ <http://www.un.org/rio%2b10/> )

include:

* the Summary of the Multistakeholder Dialogue held concurrent to COAG

* plans for contributions to national and regional reviews of SARD as

part of agenda setting for CSD-10

* further revisions to the Task Managers' Report to CSD-10 by 1 June

2001

* identification of "success stories for CSD-10

With this message, we bring to a close the formal sessions of the

E-Conference. Again, thank you for your participation and most valuable

contributions to this process that will lead to a more effecitve and

pragmatic Rio+10 in 2002.

Sincerely,

Parviz Koohafkan

Task Manager for Chapter 10

Timo Maukonen

Task Manager for Chapter 12

Eric Kueneman

Task Manager for Chapter 14

From: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>

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

Subject: EUA ABANDONA EL PROTOCOLO DE KYOTO

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:43:39 -0400

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

=20=20

28 de marzo, 2001

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

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

do a combatir el calentamiento global, porque el presidente George Bush lo =

considera contrario a los intereses del pa=EDs, dijo el mi=E9rcoles un port=

avoz de la Casa Blanca.=20

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

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

l para las relaciones con Estados Unidos.=20

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

tavoz de la Casa Blanca, Ari Fleischer.=20

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

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

limitar las emisiones industriales de gases de efecto invernadero, que se c=

ree causan el calentamiento global.=20

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

rrollo a limitar sus emisiones de gases y porque cree que los costos supera=

n los beneficios.=20

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

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

emisiones de di=F3xido de carbono, un gas que la mayor=EDa de los cient=EDf=

icos considera un factor clave en el aumento de las temperaturas

del planeta.=20

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

etr=F3leo y carb=F3n, as=ED como de legisladores conservadores opuestos a l=

a medida.=20

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

h se re=FAna en Washington con el canciller alem=E1n, Gerhard Schroeder, qu=

ien la semana pasada le pidi=F3 a Bush en una carta que cumpliera con el ac=

uerdo.=20

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

dijo que nunca entr=F3 en funcionamiento, queriendo decir que no

hay de qu=E9 retirarse.=20

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

equiere para implementar el tratado, Rumania, ha tomado medidas en ese sent=

ido. "Es una se=F1al de que otros est=E1n de acuerdo con la posici=F3n del =

presidente sobre el tratado", afirm=F3.

From: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>

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

Subject: U.S. Aims to Pull Out of Global Warming Treaty

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 11:49:34 -0400

U.S. Aims to Pull Out of Warming Treaty=20

'No Interest' in Implementing Kyoto Pact, Whitman Says=20

By Eric Pianin

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 28, 2001; Page A01=20

The White House recently sought advice from the State Department about how =

the United States can legally withdraw its signature from a landmark 1997 g=

lobal warming agreement, signaling its intent to pull out despite efforts b=

y European and Japanese leaders to try to keep the agreement alive, an admi=

nistration source said yesterday.

The global warming treaty -- negotiated and signed in Kyoto, Japan -- marke=

d the first time that the world's industrial nations committed to binding l=

imits on the heat-trapping gases that scientists believe threaten catastrop=

hic changes in the planet's climate. Under its terms, the United States wou=

ld have to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and certain othe=

r pollutants by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

However, the Senate has refused to ratify the treaty, and President Bush wr=

ote to four conservative senators March 13 that he opposed the agreement be=

cause it exempts developing countries and would harm the U.S. economy.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman told r=

eporters yesterday that the Kyoto protocol was dead as far as the administr=

ation was concerned and that if the Europeans and Japanese wanted to reach =

an agreement, they would have to abandon the outlines of the accord and tak=

e a different approach.

"No, we have no interest in implementing that treaty," Whitman said. "If th=

ere's a general agreement that we need to be addressing the global climate =

change issue, [the question is] how do we do it in a way that allows us to =

make some progress, instead of spending our time committed to something tha=

t isn't going to go."

The efforts by the administration to further distance the United States fro=

m the global warming accord seemed certain to stun European Union officials=

, who have been urging Bush to help restart stalled talks on implementing t=

he agreement.

Whitman's comments angered environmental groups, which already are upset by=

Bush's decision March 13 to reverse himself on a campaign pledge to seek m=

ajor reductions in U.S. power plant carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental=

ists and Democrats have condemned that decision as a major setback to effor=

ts to combat global warming.

EU leaders sent Bush a letter last week saying that the United States and E=

urope "urgently needed" talks on a follow-up to last year's failed efforts =

in The Hague to try to reach accommodation on a global warming treaty. Unti=

l yesterday, Whitman had kept a dim hope alive that the administration migh=

t try to negotiate a deal this summer, despite Bush's opposition to the Kyo=

to protocol.

In light of Bush's March 13 letter, a White House official contacted the St=

ate Department inquiring what the administration was required to do to indi=

cate that it would not ratify the Kyoto agreement, according to the source,=

who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The White House was told that it could withdraw by having Secretary of Stat=

e Colin L. Powell send a letter to the United Nations notifying it that the=

United States has no intention of ratifying the agreement, the source said.

A senior State Department official said last night that his department was =

asked to help determine "where do we go from here" as part of a review of t=

he climate change accord. But the official insisted that how to "unsign" th=

e Kyoto treaty "was not one of the questions tasked out under the review."

Whitman said that the president continues to believe global warming is a se=

rious issue and that the administration will remain engaged in internationa=

l negotiations on ways to address climate change.

Whitman noted that no other major industrial country has ratified the Kyoto=

agreement. "We are not the only ones who have problems with it," Whitman s=

aid.

The next round of Kyoto talks is slated for July in Bonn, where some expect=

the Bush administration to present alternatives.

A week before Bush decided he would not seek limits on carbon dioxide emiss=

ions by power plants, Whitman warned him in a memo that he must demonstrate=

his commitment to cutting greenhouse gases or risk undermining the United =

States' standing among its allies.

"Mr. President, this is a credibility issue for the U.S. in the internation=

al community. It is also an issue that is resonating here at home," she wro=

te in the March 6 memo. "We need to appear engaged."

Yesterday's developments angered environmental leaders, who in the immediat=

e aftermath of Bush's inauguration in January had thought the administratio=

n might prove willing to take steps to address global warming. Industry gro=

ups that have long opposed the Kyoto protocol cheered the administration's =

steps.

Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, said the White=

House position dangerously erodes U.S. credibility in Europe. "The preside=

nt has walked away from yet another campaign promise on global warming, and=

infuriated our allies in the process," he said. "Declaring the Kyoto negot=

iations dead rather than proposing changes which would make it acceptable w=

ill delay action on global warming for years and years."

Glenn F. Kelly, executive director of the Global Climate Coalition, an indu=

stry group, said, "One of the things the administration should be applauded=

for is early recognition that the Kyoto protocol is significantly flawed a=

nd that continuing to invest efforts and resources into fixing it will simp=

ly be futile."

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

To: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>,

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

Subject: Re: EUA ABANDONA EL PROTOCOLO DE KYOTO

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

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

ess should not be a surprise under the current administration. Just recent=

ly I made some comments in a GLOBALIZATION DISCUSSION I was invited to part=

icipate where I described some of the characteristics of the NEW USA MODEL =

after the previous administration which provide in my opinion one rational =

of what to expect based on those characteristics from the sustainability po=

int of view. Also the potential clash between morally based liberal police=

s(such as in the UE) and practically based liberal policies(now in the USA)=

was advanced, which may lead to a different path toward sustainability. =

Those interested can look for those comments at http://www.politalk.com/pag=

es/discuss/globalization.html

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

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN=20

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

Subject: EUA ABANDONA EL PROTOCOLO DE KYOTO

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

=20=20=20=20

28 de marzo, 2001

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

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

gido a combatir el calentamiento global, porque el presidente George Bush l=

o considera contrario a los intereses del pa=EDs, dijo el mi=E9rcoles un po=

rtavoz de la Casa Blanca.=20

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

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

ial para las relaciones con Estados Unidos.=20

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

ortavoz de la Casa Blanca, Ari Fleischer.=20

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

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

limitar las emisiones industriales de gases de efecto invernadero, que se=

cree causan el calentamiento global.=20

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

sarrollo a limitar sus emisiones de gases y porque cree que los costos supe=

ran los beneficios.=20

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

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

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

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

del planeta.=20

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

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

la medida.=20

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

ush se re=FAna en Washington con el canciller alem=E1n, Gerhard Schroeder, =

quien la semana pasada le pidi=F3 a Bush en una carta que cumpliera con el =

acuerdo.=20

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

er dijo que nunca entr=F3 en funcionamiento, queriendo decir que no

hay de qu=E9 retirarse.=20

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

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

ntido. "Es una se=F1al de que otros est=E1n de acuerdo con la posici=F3n de=

l presidente sobre el tratado", afirm=F3.

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:58:01 +0200

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

To: <director@….<ey@>

Subject: Welcome to the Stockholm Challenge Award!

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

Stockholm Challenge Award 2001.

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

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

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

the globe will evaluate your project. The finalists will be announced on =

1st of June 2001 and the winners during the prize-giving ceremony the last =

week of September.

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

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

of contacts. That is why we publish detailed information of each participat=

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

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

the web site frequently!

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

=B7 Projects competing in your own category - read about their projects, =

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

and disparities

=B7 Projects competing from your own home town - exchange contacts and =

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

ceremony together

=B7 Projects competing in other categories - learn about how others have =

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

you need for solving your own problems

=B7 Statistics derived from the projects competing in the Stockholm =

Challenge Award

=B7 You will soon be able to read more about the prize-giving ceremony and =

the Best Practices Exhibition and Conference.=20

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

2001 in our monthly newsletter. We have taken the liberty of adding you as =

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

our web site and mark unsubscribe in the appropriate box.=20

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

you will help us spread the message about the Stockholm Challenge Award to =

other projects, media and organisations in your network. Attached to this =

e-mail you will find a web participant pin and we hope you put it at your =

web site showing your participation in the Stockholm Challenge 2001.=20

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

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

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

press release about your project participating in the Stockholm Challenge =

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

release themselves, let us know.

Once again, welcome to the Stockholm Challenge Award!

Best regards,

Monica Bernestrom

Project Manager

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =20

New Era - New Thinking - New Challenge

Join in on www.challenge.stockholm.se

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

e-mail: info@challenge.stockholm.se

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

Stockholm Challenge

Stockholm Economic Development Agency

105 35 Stockholm=20

SWEDEN

To: ELAN@csf.colorado.edu

From: John Newcomb <jnewcomb@uvic.ca>

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

Mr. Bush pops the Kyoto gas bubble

National Post (Toronto)

March 31, 2001

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

Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change elicited

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

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

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

the Kyoto agreement are impossible for signatory nations to reach

without politically impossible economic sacrifices. Mr. Bush did the

industrialized world a favour by breaking a stale taboo.

It is worth noting that Mr. Bush and Christine Todd Whitman, who heads

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are not reading oil company

press releases off their TelePrompTers. Heeding the majority view of

the world's scientific community, Mr. Bush has acknowledged that the

world is getting hotter, and that man-made greenhouse gasses, carbon

dioxide most notably, are contributing to the warming trend. But Mr.

Bush also understands that the mammoth cost of complying with the

Kyoto agreement would be far too much for Americans too bear,

especially as the country teeters on the brink of full-blown

recession.

The energy usage reductions mandated under Kyoto would be staggering.

According to a report published this month by the U.S. Energy

Information Administration, North American carbon dioxide emissions

are predicted to be 34% higher in 2010 than they were in 1990.

Compliance with Kyoto would require that greenhouse gas emissions be

7% lower than the 1990 levels. This is not the sort of difference that

can be bridged by installing energy-efficient street lights or having

consumers turn their thermostats down by a few degrees at night.

Canadians and Americans have been alarmed recently by the possibility

of a recession or even by the slowing of economic growth by two or

three points. It is fantasy to believe that a democratic government

would remain in office if it sought deliberately to shrivel its

national economy significantly, but that is what adhering to the Kyoto

protocol would mean for the United States and for Canada.

In any case, the Kyoto Protocol exempts developing countries from

binding emissions targets. Yet, the developing world is expected to

produce four-fifths of the projected increase in carbon dioxide

emissions between 1990 and 2010. Thanks to rapid economic growth in

Asia and Latin America, Kyoto-exempt nations will account for half the

world's energy usage by 2020. Which means even if Kyoto were

scrupulously adhered to, world carbon dioxide emissions would be 26%

higher in 2010 than in 1990, compared with 34% higher if it were

flouted entirely. Mr. Bush is right that the eight point difference

does not justify an economic implosion. Those politicians who have for

years suggested that Kyoto could be adhered to largely without pain

have been conjuring a fantasy. At last there is a statesman in

Washington willing to speak the plain truth.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?=/stories/20010331/518755.html

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

To: "John Newcomb" <>,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

science have found ways to develop mutually beneficial strategies after

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

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

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

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

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

capitalism?.

Comments are welcome.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: "John Newcomb" <jnewcomb@uvic.ca>

To: <ELAN@csf.colorado.edu>

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

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

> Mr. Bush pops the Kyoto gas bubble

>

> National Post (Toronto)

> March 31, 2001

>

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

> Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change elicited

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

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

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

> the Kyoto agreement are impossible for signatory nations to reach

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

> industrialized world a favour by breaking a stale taboo.

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:36:49 -0700

To: elan@csf.colorado.edu

From: John Newcomb <jnewcomb@uvic.ca>

Subject: "Sayonara, Kyoto" (Pro-Bush)

Sayonara, Kyoto

A pig-headed oil company stooge -- but enough of Bush's good points

Mark Steyn

National Post

April 2, 2001

Even if the Kyoto accords didn't deserve dumping in and of themselves, it would have been worth doing just for the pleasure of watching Europe go bananas. "Mark yesterday's date," wrote Geoffrey Lean in the London Evening Standard. "It is no exaggeration to say that 28 March 2001 may prove to be one of the most important days in the history of the world." British Environment Secretary Michael Meacher said it could lead to the planet becoming "uninhabitable." His predecessor John Gummer called it an assault on European sovereignty (whatever that is). Globally warming to his theme, he decided he wasn't going to have Yankee imperialism shoved down his throat. "We are not going to allow our climate to be changed by somebody else," he roared, threatening an international trade war against the United States. You go, girl! Why not refuse to sell the Yanks your delightful British beef?

Following Gummem Hussein's attack on the Great Satan, The Express called "Polluter Bush An Oil Industry Stooge" and The Independent dismissed the President as a "pig-headed and blinkered politician in the pocket of the U.S. oil companies." But enough of his good points. According to the eco-alarmists of the Seventies, there wasn't supposed to be any oil industry to be a stooge of by now. The oil was meant to run out by 2000. Being in the pocket of the oil companies should be about as lucrative as being in the pocket of the buggy-whip manufacturers. But somehow the environmental doom-mongers never learn -- so concerned about reducing everybody else's toxic emissions, but determined to keep their own going at full blast.

So now "this ignorant, short-sighted and selfish politician" (Friends Of The Earth) is dumping Kyoto because it "irked the American right" (The Independent). It's certainly true that, for a Republican, there's little to be gained in kissing up to what Dubya's dad called "the spotted owl crowd." For example, New Hampshire Congressman Charlie Bass is an environmentally conscious Republican, and a fat lot of good it does him: Come election time, the Sierra Club types are funneling all the money to the Democrat candidate, whoever he is. It's the same all over the country. Indeed, if I understand this global-warming business correctly, the danger is that the waters will rise and drown the whole of Massachusetts, New York City, Long Island, the California coast and a few big cities on the Great Lakes -- in other words, every Democratic enclave will be wiped out leaving only the solid Republican heartland. For American conservatives, it's hard to see what the downside to global war!

ming i

s.

Still, I don't think it will come to that. The UN's report on climate change, issued in January, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. But it measures the 11th through 19th centuries with one system (tree ring samples) and the 20th with another (thermometers). The resultant graph looks like a long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on one end -- but only because the UN is using incompatible sets of data. That's why, according to their survey, most of the alleged warming occurred in the early 20th century, when America was a predominantly rural economy: If the UN report proves anything, it's that, as soon as folks got off their horses and starting buying automobiles, the rate of global warming slowed down. This is junk science of the most amateurish kind. Nonetheless, even though they'd only studied tree rings from the Northern Hemisphere, the UN declared the entire globe had warmed. Wisely, they refused to release the full report, !

just t

he executive summary, plus a press release from the eco-bureaucrats demonstrating that they'd proved what they set out to prove.

Maybe they're right. Maybe there really is global warming. And maybe the 4.5% of the world's greenhouse gases we humans generate is responsible for it, as opposed to the 95.5% generated by nature. But, as long as the UN and others keep monkeying with the data, you can't blame Bush for figuring it's eco-bunk.

In any case, even American politicians who believe in global warming don't believe in Kyoto. In that respect, Geoffrey Lean might like to note, the day that will live in infamy is not March 28, 2001 but July 26, 1997 -- the date when the U.S. Senate voted against the proposed treaty 95-0. Not one Senator -- not even Ted Kennedy -- voted in favour. In Kyoto, Al Gore signed anyway, but that old fraud Clinton never bothered sending it to the Senate for ratification because he needed 67 votes and he knew he was 67 short. Mr. Lean and his chums have had four years to get used to the idea that Kyoto's dead, not because of one right-wing oil stooge but because of virtually the entire American political establishment. It's doubtful whether even Senator Hillary Clinton would sign on to this. When Bush announced he'd be drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, Hillary said his "charm offensive" was really a "harm offensive." When Bush decided against federal regulatio!

n of c

arbon dioxide emissions, Hillary observed that "it looks like we've gone from CO2 to 'See you later'." When he scrapped proposed federally mandated reductions on arsenic in the water supply, she jeered, "It's arsenic and about face." But when Bush scrapped Kyoto, Hill made no puns whatsoever. Even she knows Kyoto's off the graph. (Incidentally, I don't know whether it's the arsenic in the water supply, but Hillary seems to be developing as severe a case of lamebrain jingle disease as the Reverend Jesse Jackson.)

As for John Gummer's protests about the U.S. invading European sovereignty, the whole treaty is an assault on national sovereignty, especially America's. The U.S. cannot comply with the accords without substantial job losses -- 100,000 in Michigan alone, 80,000 in Georgia. Worse, the treaty would set up an international emissions-trading market, whereby the only way to mitigate against the economic shrinkage would be for the U.S. to buy "pollution permits" from Russia, India or various developing countries, which would be allowed to sell their "pollution rights" for billions of dollars which would supposedly go to reducing their own emissions. But there'd be no way to ensure that those countries really do spend the money on emissions reductions: The U.S. would wind up paying the Russian mafia or the Congo's nutcake of the month for the privilege of not closing an auto plant in Flint. According to some estimates, the transfer of wealth from selling emissions chits could have !

been w

orth up to US$40-billion just to the Russians. Do you really think the generals and the KGB are going to let the Kremlin spend a US$40-billion cheque from Uncle Sam on cleaner factories for lead-free Ladas? At best you'd have a greenhouse-gas version of the European Fisheries Policy, under which the British can't fish in their own waters but any passing Spaniard trailing his pantyhose off the back of the trawler can (as Newfoundlanders well know). The Kyoto treaty was a deranged proposal to give the world's loopier jurisdictions a veto over America's economy. And not just the economy: Military emissions would come under a separate tally, conceivably leading to a situation in which the U.S. has to get emissions permits from neutral powers or prospective enemies before it can bomb Saddam.

The U.S. was supposed to go along with this because it would be a "symbolic gesture." But we've had eight years of symbolic gestures, and Bush feels it's time to get real, especially on the environment. Messrs Gummer, Lean and the overheated Europeans should chill out. Every significant environmental improvement -- from lead-free gas to recycling -- comes from America, and global warming, such as it is, will be solved -- like most problems -- by American ingenuity, not Euro-regulation. The era of Clintonian posturing is over, chaps. Wake up and smell the CO2.

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/columnists/story.html?f=/stories/20010402/519617.html

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

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: What do members of ELAN think?

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

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

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

share them.

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

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

into a socio-environmental movement?

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

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

movements to approximate better a political decision?

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

Greetings;

Lucio

From: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <jcenteno@telcel.net.ve>

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

Subject: FRANCIA PROPONE IMPLEMENTACION DEL PROTOCOLO DE KYOTO

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:15:56 -0400

Chirac pide la puesta en marcha inmediata del Protocolo de Kioto

Lluvia de cr=EDticas a la postura de Bush=20

GABRIELA CA=D1AS / AGENCIAS | Bruselas / Ginebra - S=E1bado, 31 de marzo de=

2001

El presidente franc=E9s, Jacques Chirac, hizo ayer un llamamiento a todos l=

os pa=EDses para poner en marcha urgentemente el Protocolo de Kioto de redu=

cci=F3n de gases de efecto invernadero.=20

La decisi=F3n del presidente estadounidense, George Bush, de rechazar la ra=

tificaci=F3n del protocolo ha provocado una avalancha internacional de cr=

=EDticas. Greenpeace pidi=F3 ayer un mayor liderazgo de la UE para ratifica=

r el acuerdo, pese a que la comisaria europea de Medio Ambiente, Margot Wal=

lstr=F6m, se=F1al=F3 que estar=EDa incompleto sin Estados Unidos.

'En una =E9poca de calentamiento global y de un perturbador e inaceptable r=

eto al Protocolo de Kioto, de desertificaci=F3n que avanza y crisis de agua=

potable de grandes proporciones, =BFc=F3mo podemos afirmar el derecho a un=

medio ambiente protegido y preservado para las generaciones futuras?', dec=

lar=F3 ayer Chirac en Ginebra ante la comisi=F3n de Derechos Humanos de Nac=

iones Unidas. 'Con este esp=EDritu, hago un llamamiento urgente a todos los=

estados y en primer lugar a los pa=EDses industrializados para poner en vi=

gor plenamente el Protocolo de Kioto sin demora'. El protocolo data de 1997.

Para la comisaria europea de Medio Ambiente, Margot Wallstr=F6m, la ratific=

aci=F3n sin Estados Unidos llevar=EDa a un acuerdo incompleto ya que, recor=

d=F3, Estados Unidos genera el mayor porcentaje de gases de efecto invernad=

ero en todo el mundo. Bruselas, adem=E1s, asegura tener esperanzas de poder=

reconducir la situaci=F3n y sentar de nuevo a Washington en la mesa de neg=

ociaciones.

Las consecuencias econ=F3micas de ratificar y poner en vigor el protocolo s=

in Estados Unidos, seg=FAn se=F1alaron ayer observadores europeos, son inso=

stenibles para la Uni=F3n Europea, que tendr=EDa que reducir sus emisiones =

y aumentar los precios energ=E9ticos frente a una potencia, Estados Unidos,=

libre de compromisos medioambientales y por tanto m=E1s competitiva.

Bill Hare, responsable de cambio clim=E1tico en Greenpeace, inst=F3 a los m=

inistros europeos de medio ambiente que se re=FAnen este fin de semana en S=

uecia, a que rescaten el protocolo, y coment=F3 que los intentos de cambiar=

la posici=F3n de Bush se han demostrado in=FAtiles, por lo que hay que log=

rar la ratificaci=F3n del acuerdo en 2002, plazo internacionalmente previst=

o.

La presidenta del Parlamento Europeo, Nicole Fontaine, se sum=F3 ayer a las=

cr=EDticas y denunci=F3 'la irresponsabilidad del presidente Bush sobre el=

efecto invernadero'. Fontaine a=F1adi=F3: 'Argumentar que el coste de esta=

lucha es muy elevado me consterna, pues significa que la primera potencia =

econ=F3mica renuncia a la solidaridad internacional y pone en grave peligro=

el ecosistema mundial y, por tanto, el futuro de las j=F3venes generacione=

s'.

Adem=E1s de la visita de la troika comunitaria a Estados Unidos la semana q=

ue viene para pedir explicaciones de la postura anunciada por Bush, la Uni=

=F3n Europea env=EDa una delegaci=F3n a Rusia, China, Ir=E1n y Jap=F3n para=

ganar apoyo para el acuerdo.

Tambi=E9n China -pa=EDs en v=EDas de desarrollo y por tanto no obligado a r=

educir sus emisiones en el plazo 2008-2012- se ha sumado a las cr=EDticas a=

Bush. 'El anuncio de Estados Unidos de que no cumplir=E1 sus obligaciones =

sobre reducci=F3n de emisiones, ampar=E1ndose en la ausencia de obligacione=

s de los pa=EDses en desarrollo, viola las reglas fundamentales del Protoco=

lo de Kioto y es una irresponsabilidad', declar=F3 el Ministerio de Exterio=

res chino.

From: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <jcenteno@telcel.net.ve>

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

Subject: NEW CLIMATE PROPOSALS AIM TO APPEASE USA

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 14:16:05 -0400

New Climate Proposals Aim to Appease USA=20

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

ed Nations climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk, has =

offered a new set of compromise proposals on rules for the Kyoto Protocol t=

hat are aimed at persuading the United States to rejoin the process.=20

Released today, the plan to limit global warming will be discussed in a clo=

sed ministerial meeting in New York on Saturday.=20

Under Pronk's new proposals, the greenhouse gas emissions limits defined fo=

r each of 39 industrialized countries by the Kyoto Protocol would remain th=

e same, but the means available to attain those limits would be extended be=

yond previous proposals.=20

Under the protocol, 39 industrialized nations agree to cut their emissions =

of six greenhouse gases linked to global warming. They must reduce emission=

s to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five year perio=

d 2008 to 2012. Over 150 countries including the United States have signed,=

but not ratified the protocol.=20

Negotiations on the protocol broke down last November without agreement on =

a number of political "crunch" issues, Pronk said, though he noted that "su=

bstantial advances" were made.=20

U.S. President George W. Bush said last month that he would not support Kyo=

to Protocol, raising a storm of protest from around the world. European nat=

ions, China, Russia, Iran, Japan and Canada have all pledged to move the cl=

imate protocol forward despite U.S. opposition.=20

Pronk's new proposal is aimed at resolving many of the objections the U.S. =

has raised in the past. It would set no clear limit on the flexible mechani=

sms that the industrialized countries could use to achieve their targets, a=

point of disagreement between the United States and the European Union. Th=

e EU wanted nations to make at least half of their emissions cuts within th=

eir own borders, but the U.S. wanted no limit on the purchase of emissions =

reduction credits from other countries.=20

Pronk's plan would allow countries to offset some of the carbon dioxide sto=

red in their forests and farmlands to meet their emissions limits - another=

key demand of the United States.=20

Countries would be permitted to plant forests and reforest denuded lands to=

soak up carbon dioxide (CO2), the major greenhouse gas linked to global wa=

rming which is absorbed by plants.=20

To help developing countries limit greenhouse gas emissions, a major point =

of opposition from the Bush administration, Pronk is proposing the creation=

of a billion-dollar fund by 2005.=20

Contributions by individual nations would be proportionate to their CO2 emi=

ssions in the base year, 1990. The United States, which emits 25 percent of=

the world's greenhouse gases, might pay about 250 million dollars.=20

Funding of projects in developing countries aimed at "preventing deforestat=

ion" would not be allowed. But projects on forest conservation, rehabilitat=

ion of degraded land and combating the spread of deserts would be eligible =

for funding.=20

Land use activities under the protocol must "contribute to biodiversity con=

servation and sustainable use of natural resources," Pronk maintains.=20

Despite assertions of the nuclear industry that its power plants do not con=

tribute to global warming, nuclear facilities will not be allowable for cer=

tified emissions reductions under Pronk's proposal.=20

Credits for activities to reduce greenhouse gases would only be approved af=

ter analysis by expert review teams.=20

Land use, land-use change and forestry decisions will be based on sound sci=

ence, Pronk assures the signatories to the climate agreement. "My solution =

is a middle path," he told the Dutch news agency ANP.=20

To increases the chances of success, climate conferences should begin with =

policy negotiations and proceed to technical discussions, Pronk said.=20

On Thursday, senior officials from the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan=

, Australia and the G-77 group of developing countries will meet in New Yor=

k to discuss the new plan. Representatives of 41 governments will meet Pron=

k for informal consultations at New York's Waldorf Astoria on April 20 and =

21.=20

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

To: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>,

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

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

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

Positive comments:

The Brundland Commission's approach to sustainable development was base=

d, in my opinion, solely on science(a la western). SCIENCE WAS GOING TO DE=

TERMINE THE POLICY. The USA position has apparently shift the approach 180 =

degrees, and now the approach to sustainable development will be, apparentl=

y for sure, solely based on politics(a la western). POLITICS IS GOING TO D=

ETERMINE THE SCIENCE. Are we about to see the extintions of the so call GO=

OD SCIENCE?. Or are we about to get immerse in another of the required para=

digm shifts toward sustainability?

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

nces should begin with policy negotiations and proceed to technical discuss=

ions, Pronk said" appears to indicate that politics should be now before te=

chnical matters.=20=20

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

c policy(eg. land use, landuse change, forestry...), no science is needed. =

Once we know the policy, let's bring the science in to justify it/improve =

it. What do others think about these issues?

Greetings;

Lucio=20

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

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

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN=20

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

Subject: NEW CLIMATE PROPOSALS AIM TO APPEASE USA

New Climate Proposals Aim to Appease USA=20

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

ited Nations climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk, ha=

s offered a new set of compromise proposals on rules for the Kyoto Protocol=

that are aimed at persuading the United States to rejoin the process.=20

.....

..........

To increases the chances of success, climate conferences should begin wit=

h policy negotiations and proceed to technical discussions, Pronk said.=20

....

....

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:24:24 -0500

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

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

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

to sustainability appear on track

Lucio:

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

thinking about planning a discussion on precisely that issue - The

Kyoto process and Global Warming.

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

this discussion?

Thanks,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

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

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

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

>situation reminded me some to the comments made in your

>globalization conference.

>My warm greetings;

>Lucio

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

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

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

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

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

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

the dillemas changing liberal policies should be expected to bring and the=

ir relation to sustainability thinking.

Greetings;

Lucio munoz

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

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

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

remain unchanged when liberal policies in the USA change?

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

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

"Politalk" <info@politalk.com>

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

hen liberal policies in the USA change?

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

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

we live in a constantly changing or dynamic world, and that we should not

remain static in our concepts or thoughts when political change takes places

within power houses, in this case the United States.

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

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

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

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

Bruntland report and practicality based liberal policies apparently on our

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

ago?.

Will the conflict between morality and practicality affect the existing

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

flexibility, full efficiency, deterritorialisation and borderless scenarios,

market segmentation, destruction of traditional cultures, homogenization,

universalisation, and flexible political change? Can diversity be the result

of the conflict between morality based and practicality based liberal

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

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

sustainability.

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

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

right now may not be the same.

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

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

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

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

Under restricted and excluding liberal policies, the moral basis of

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

sooner the clash between the proponents of morality based liberal

globalization(economic globalization subject to human and environmental

concerns) and practicality based liberal globalization(pure economic

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

established clearly in the real world that that true global liberal

sustainability may be a hybrid scenario based on the conjuctural interaction

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

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

These are my thoughts and your comments are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: [Pol-US1] Question

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

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

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

> they are again.

>

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

>

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

>

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

> changing the way that individuals identify themselves with groups or

> communities? Are we becoming more likely to identify with

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

> interest) or has globalization intensified nationalistic tendencies

> and ties to local communities?

>

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

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

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

> Please explain......

From: "Michael Dutschke" <>

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:20:14 -0300

Dear Lucio;

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

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

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

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

uncertainty hardly be measurable and certainly will not stop global =

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

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

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

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

science in politics has always a subsidiary function, compared to other =

UN negociations, it is on relatively high scores, see the role of the =

IPCC reports.

The Pronk proposal to start negociating on politics and to solve =

technical issues afterwards is based on the experience of The Hague, =

where interests vested under technical arguments made the discussion =

inefficient and time-consuming. Thus, it might be didactically =

preferable to start talking business and solve the "technical" (if you =

will: "scientific") questions afterwards.

Best regards

Michael=20

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

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: Julio Cesar Centeno ; ELAN=20

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:01 AM

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

Bruntland commission's approach?

Positive comments:

The Brundland Commission's approach to sustainable development was =

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

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

approach 180 degrees, and now the approach to sustainable development =

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

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

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

in another of the required paradigm shifts toward sustainability?

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

conferences should begin with policy negotiations and proceed to =

technical discussions, Pronk said" appears to indicate that politics =

should be now before technical matters. =20

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

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

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio=20

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

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

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN=20

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

Subject: NEW CLIMATE PROPOSALS AIM TO APPEASE USA

New Climate Proposals Aim to Appease USA=20

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

the United Nations climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan =

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

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

the process.=20

.....=20

..........=20

To increases the chances of success, climate conferences should =

begin with policy negotiations and proceed to technical discussions, =

Pronk said.=20

....=20

....

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:08:32 -0300 (EST)

From: Odo >

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

Subject: Re: Greetings Odo

Hi, Lucio!

I agree fully with your last lines.

But...

After that I heared from pres.Bush, that the economical development

nmeed to be over all environmental e social themes, I hope that the

environmental crash happens as soon as possible! Poor America! His policy

will affect also the american people, and with more intensity, not only

the third world people.

I learned that the usual term development means nothing more than

predatory extractivism of the environmental and social.

Nobody (of the governments) is interested in a global communitary welfare.

Sorry! I cannot help this gays.

The predatory activity is done in a bigger scale than the sustainable use

or recovery of the environment. In a sustainable way of life we dont need

so much area for agriculture or extractivism! The consumerism is turned

off! The unic solution is a big big environmental crash! Sorry!

And the worst is that, for example, more than 85% of the population (in

Brazil) lives in cities. Most of them did lose the contact to the nature.

They do not know how to survive working. Working to produce. Not

working to explore others or to intermediate activities. Working in all

kinds of point of

view. The worsest case is working in agriculture to produce food and

water for theirself. Sorry! Its the situation, and nobody will change

this. When the term sustainability was created by the big 7, they also

meaned only their economical sustainability!! Nothing more!

I am trying to work for a paralel society in which the

actual concepts would be considered in their correct

socio-ecological meanings. In the biblic revelations, is a comment that in

future everybody will work to produce their own food! Build their own

home! (no sklavery!)

With the best regards,

Odo

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

To: "Michael Dutschke" <>,

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

Subject: The process from Bruntland/RIO to now

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

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

nly out in front of science, I think. The bilief is that GOOD SCIENCE MUST=

BE BASED ON FACTS, TESTABLE FACTS, POLITICS DOES NOT NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR T=

HE FACTS.=20=20

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

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

recently looked at the practical experience of working on the political st=

ones burried 10 years ago. Kyoto was about applying the fruits of what sci=

entiest have learned the past 10 years, if I am not mistaken. Yet at the i=

mplementation stage, 2001,science is set aside; and politics took again ove=

r.

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

as a possibility so science was needed;

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

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

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

ut possible positive externalities. I think that from now and on, science =

can not/may not be able to disregard traditional knowledge as second class =

knowledge as it may stopped being good science if it does not reflect the f=

acts/practice; and now we can not blame those who do not want to cooperate =

with social and environmental standards for not cooperating enough, special=

ly those who had they pulled out of the process would have been seriously m=

arginalized. If trade is both ways, committents should be too.=20=20

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

art of the evolutionary process, which sometimes may go in backward-forwar=

d patterns or ups-downs moves, alone or with partners. However, these heal=

thy dynamics may test social and/or environmental limits. In the past, the =

economy survived social pressures, now it also will have to deal with envir=

onmental pressures. I made a comment once in a globalization conference re=

lated to the saying " A DOS PUNTAS NO HAY TORO VALIENTE", which is a dillem=

a that systainability theory suggest will come.

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

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Michael Dutschke=20

To: Lucio Munoz ; ELAN=20

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

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

and commission's approach?

Dear Lucio;

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

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

re about a 5.2% target (shrinking with every new proposal!) for the first b=

udget period, which will, under the current conditions of uncertainty hardl=

y be measurable and certainly will not stop global warming. The only -polit=

ical- hope is climate policy's own dynamics to improve over time, e.g. when=

the economically and local environmental beneficial effects of reducing gr=

eenhouse gases will show. For me, this is the only reason that justifies su=

staining the Kyoto process. While science in politics has always a subsidia=

ry function, compared to other UN negociations, it is on relatively high sc=

ores, see the role of the IPCC reports.

The Pronk proposal to start negociating on politics and to solve technica=

l issues afterwards is based on the experience of The Hague, where interest=

s vested under technical arguments made the discussion inefficient and time=

-consuming. Thus, it might be didactically preferable to start talking busi=

ness and solve the "technical" (if you will: "scientific") questions afterw=

ards.

Best regards

Michael=20

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

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: Julio Cesar Centeno ; ELAN=20

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:01 AM

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

d commission's approach?

Positive comments:

The Brundland Commission's approach to sustainable development was =

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

O DETERMINE THE POLICY. The USA position has apparently shift the approach =

180 degrees, and now the approach to sustainable development will be, appar=

ently for sure, solely based on politics(a la western). POLITICS IS GOING =

TO DETERMINE THE SCIENCE. Are we about to see the extintions of the so cal=

l GOOD SCIENCE?. Or are we about to get immerse in another of the required =

paradigm shifts toward sustainability?

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

ferences should begin with policy negotiations and proceed to technical dis=

cussions, Pronk said" appears to indicate that politics should be now befor=

e technical matters.=20=20

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

cific policy(eg. land use, landuse change, forestry...), no science is need=

ed. Once we know the policy, let's bring the science in to justify it/impr=

ove it. What do others think about these issues?

Greetings;

Lucio=20

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

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

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN=20

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

Subject: NEW CLIMATE PROPOSALS AIM TO APPEASE USA

New Climate Proposals Aim to Appease USA=20

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

e United Nations climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk=

, has offered a new set of compromise proposals on rules for the Kyoto Prot=

ocol that are aimed at persuading the United States to rejoin the process.=

=20

.....=20

..........=20

To increases the chances of success, climate conferences should begin=

with policy negotiations and proceed to technical discussions, Pronk said.=

=20

....=20

....