Dear friends. My name is Lucio Munoz. I am a Ph.D. student at the

University of British Columbia, Canada. Right now I am working on a

thesis related to the deforestation problem in central America: I am

proposing a cost-efficient and holistic methodology that may be used to

establish a program of continuous deforestation assessment and planning.

This methodology is designed to balance the existing discourse between

detailed qualitative analysis and condensed quantitative analysis while at

the same time allowing to uncover causation and patterns of causation in a

way that deforestation plans and profiles consistent with country-specific

conditions and regional-specific conditions could be developed.

I would be interested in establishing contacts with other researchers

working on this topic in Central America. Moreover, as part of my validation

process, I am in the process of passing a short questionnaire in each country

in central America to people working in the area of forestry/deforestation/

sustainability. If there is a person in each central American country who

wants to give me a hand with the questionnaire in their country, I would

appreciate that. I will try be an active participant as much as possible.

Greetings to all from Canada.

Lo siguiente es importante para este argumento en cuanto a gramatica:

1)todas la lenguas estan en un proceso continuo de evolucion;2) las reglas

gramaticales estan dirigidas a contener/controlar el grado o rapidez de

evolucion; 3) extrangerismos, ya sea directos(palabras extrangeras importadas

y modidicadas/usadas con contexto local) o indirectos(palabras modificadas/

usadas por extrangeros y aceptadas por la sociedad local) estan continuamente

ejerciendo presion en el grado de evolucion; 4) la globalizacion esta accelerado

las preciones debido a estos extrangerismos y las reglas gramaticales y el

grado de evolucion estan tambien siendo presionadas; 5) fricciones van a ver ya

que justificaciones dirigidas a cambiar reglas gramaticales de otras lenguas

usualmente no son bien benidas en el corto plazo. En el largo plazo, el grado

de uso va a determinar aceptacion o no de palabras/oraciones; 6) asi como el

Che reaciono fuertemente a el uso de la palabra ECOLOGISTA, la cual indudablemente

viene de la traduccion directa de ECOLOGIST. Elizabeth puede que reaccione

fuertemente si empesamos a usar SPANINGLISH en esta lista; 7) conclusion, seamos

flexibles: ESTE ES EL UNICO CAMINO QUE NOS DEJA EL PROCESO DE GLOBALIZACION.

Para tratar de dar ideas a la solucion de esta discusion de terminologia

aqui esta mi granito de arena a pesar de que no soy ECOLOGO:

Usando la terminologia de sistemas, el sistema medio-ambiente

puede ser dividido en dos subsistemas: 1) el sistema ecologico, compuesto

por todos los componentes de el sistema ambiental con vida(bacterias,

plantas, animales...seres humanos; y 2) el sistema no-ecologico, sin

vida: viento, rocas, suelo, agua...

Hay que notar, que la ecologia como ciencia excluye el estudio de

los seres humanos aunque estos son parte de el sistema ecologico, si bien

me acuerdo. Si definimos el sistema no-ecologico como la parte externa a el

sistema ecologico, entonces el sistema no ecologico es el AMBIENTE.

Si la parte externa a el sistema ecologico es el ambiente, entonces el

sistema ecologico es definido como el MEDIO.

Basado en lo anterior, es claro que la ecologia/sub-sistema

ecologico/MEDIO es parte de el sistema del medio ambiente y por lo tanto

los terminos ECOLOGIA Y MEDIO AMBIENTE NO SON EQUIVALENTES, como Alex

sostiene. Lo anterior tambien se puede usar para resaltar, que si el

termino MEDIO AMBIENTE es usado fuera de la NOCION DE SISTEMAS, entoces

su significado puede ser confuso ya que medio/ecologia no es lo mismo

que ambiente/no-ecologia. Por el otro lado, si el termino MEDIO

AMBIENTE es usado con la nocion de SISTEMAS, entonces es un termino

correcto el cual representa la union de dos subsistemas (ecologico-noecologico)

y sus interrelaciones. Finalmente quiero mencionar que el uso de terminologia

APARENTEMENTE fuera de contexto puede ser que sea un ACTO PREMEDITADO,

no de ignorancia, especialmente en investigacion. CADA QUIEN Y CADA

GRUPO UTILIZA LA TERMINOLOGIA Y CONCEPTOS CONSIDERADOS APROPRIADOS

POR ELLOS EN SU AREA DE ESPECIALIZACION, lo cual no debe de ser una

sorpresa.

Saludes a todos;

Posted by others: Dear elaner's:

< Just a little thought about this controversy.If the patent is

< of no value at all, why not drop it then? I just wonder.

< Clearly one must be extremely naive to believe there is no value

< insomething like this, especially with the great push the US is giving to

< the Intelectual Property Rights scheme.

My view:

THE TRUE VALUE OF THIS PATENT MAY NOT BE ITS PRESENT ECONOMICVALUE,

BUT THE FUTURE ECONOMIC VALUE OF OPENNING UP AND WITHHOLDING THE

RIGHT(MORAL OR NOT) OF PATENTING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE/TRADITION/CULTURE/

WAYS OF LIVES.

There is no doubt that this controversy is a classical example of

the power struggle between local knowledge and non-local knowledge.

It is not a secret that people holding non-local knowledge take local

knowledge(usually) as no-knowledge, specialy when non-local knowledge

holders are having a difficult time, undecoding and understanding the

local knowledge of their interest. As long as non-local knowledge

holders have problems undecoding/understanding local knowledge, then it

remains wild and with no expected value. Zero expected value implies no

moral and ethical dilemmas because there is no rational for patenting

local knowledge.

When non-local knowledge holders succeed in undecoding/understanding

local knowledge, then the expected value of local knowledge is not longer

zero and the rational to cross moral and ethical frontiers appears. The

grounds for patenting usually are that local knowledge holder did not know

scientifically what they had, and that since non-local knowledge holders

were able to undecode the scientific(meaning) characteristics, they are

the owners and have the right to patent it.

It seems that this patenting process takes away the moral/ethical

issues arising from patenting local knowledge by claiming that it is now

not a moral/ethical issue, but a legal issue. Some businesses remain in

business even at zero profits hoping for the revenue tide to over power

the cost tide one day and make a positive profit.

I hope we all will learn from the implications of this

controversy, especially for latin america, in particular and for less

developed countries, in general.

My view:Hello, I am a new member of this list so I am not sure how English

came to be the official language, but my suggestion would beto have the original

posting to dictate the language to be followed in that discussion so that

everybody has the change to chose the language that allow them to feel more

confident and coherent when posting. This could be a good taste of democracy

and choice and may increase participation. What do the other think?

Estimados Amigos. Estoy en la etapa final de completar un cuestionario

que estoy pasando en cada pais centro americano con el unico objeto de

validacion de los resultados de mi tesis. Quiero solicitar la

colaboracion de los amigos centro americanos en esta lista. Necesito

aumentar la participacion en BELIZE, PANAMA, COSTA RICA, y completar el

numero de cuestionarios de EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS Y NICARAGUA.

Por favor, envierme un numero de fax donde yo les pueda enviar mi

cuestionario ya que no me es permitido pasarlo por medios

electronicos(e-mail). Se los voy a agradecer mucho.

Sinceramente;

Dear friends. As part of the validation process of my thesis I am

passing a short and simple questionnaire in each central America

country. I need to increase the participation of people from Belize. I

would like to request the participation of people from Belize on this list

to help me out either just participating or participating plus additional

contacts. Please, let me know a fax number where I can send you my

questionnaire. I will appreciate that.

Sincerely;

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

constructiva aqui esta esta mensaje.

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

paises desarrollados debido a que la definicion delos terminos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

america(en paises subdesarrollados) porque los profesionales

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

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

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

sostenibilidad o es sostenibilidad desarrollo sostenido? Por ejemplo,

el desarrollo economico consistente con la ecologia puede ser sostenido

pero no sostenible o el desarrollo social consistente con la ecologia

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

Saludes a todos;

Estimado Ricardo. Precisamente debido a que hay diferentes

posiciones ideologicas, semanticas, y de terminologia consistentes con

el concepto de "desarrollo sostenido" es que aca en paises

desarrollados(Ejemplo, Canada) ya no se usa. Lo anterior resalta el

alto grado de confusion que existe alrededor de el termino y al mismo

tiempo esa es la razon por la cual se ha abandonado practicamente ese

termino aca y se usa"sostenibilidad".

En mi opinion, es nuestra responsabilidad como academicos hacer un

analisis imparcial de las diferentes teorias consistentes con el concepto

de "desarrollo sostenido" para que asi las diferentes ideologias esten

directamente expuestas y aclarar la aparente confusion. Esto

es de primordial importancia ahorita que existe un proceso de

burocratizacion de la problematica ambiental a nivel de

universidades(Doctorados y maestrias) en todos los paises latino

americanos. A mismo tiempo esta claridad podria llevar a facilitar la

clasificacion de los diferentes programas de "desarrollo sostenido" que

estan siendo actualmente implementados a nivel de pais, region, y local.

Ninguno de los comentarios trato de responder mi pregunta: Es

desarrollo sostenido sostenibilidad o es sustenibilidad desarrollo

sostenido? No me extran~a porque yo creo que soy una de las pocas que

hace esa pregunta. Si acaso fuera posible enumerar las diferentes teorias

en forma tal que reflejaran la ideologia dominante y sus bases semanticas

y teoricas entonces esa confusion desaparceria y de ese modo se

identificarian las caracteristicas que separan esas idealogia de la

idelologia encrustada en el concepto de desarrallo sostenido de la

comision mundial de desarrollo sostenido(WCED/1987: OUR COMMON FUTURE), la

cual refleja la necesidad de incorporar los impactos sociales y

ecologicos para que el desarrollo economico sea sostenible.

Nuevamente, con el objeto de contribuir positivamente con este

debate voy a extender este tema "aparentemente ingenuo" de acuerdo

Ricardo y el cual considero que como tal todavia no ha sido expuesto y el

cual puede ayudar a explicar el porque el uso de el concepto de

"sostenibilidad" ayudaria a resaltar las diferentes ideologias

encrustadas en el concepto de "desarrollo sostenido" aparentemente usado

en paises subdesarrollados.

Primero voy a definir los terminos usados y luego voy a describir

las diferentes ideologias posibles y luego voy a relacionar este esquema o

modelo sencillo con los conceptos de "sostenibilidad fuerte y debil"

mencionadas por ricardo y con las diferentes teorias dominantes

al rededor de desarrollo sostenido. El analisis va a ser hecho

en el contexto de interaccion de systemas completos y parciales.

Terminologia a ser usada en este ejemplo

A= economia como ente activo

a= economia como ente pasivo

B= la sociedad como ente activo

b= la sociedad como ente pasivo

C= el ambiente como ente activo

c= el ambiente como ente pasivo

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

TEORIAS POSIBLES

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

BC Bc bC bc

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

A ABC ABc AbC Abc

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

a aBC aBc abC abc

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

Anaysis de teorias posibles

1) teoria abc

Esta asume que los tres sistemas son pasivos y por lo tanto

independientes. La actividad de cada uno de ellos no afecta los

procesos que se llavan acobo en lo otros dos.

2) teoria Abc

Esta asume que la actividad economica es un ente activo y la

sociedad y el ambiente son un ente pasivo. La sociedad y el ambiente

tienen que adaptarse a los combios economicos y los niveles de actividad

economica no son afectados por cuestiones sociales y ambientales.

En pocas palabras esta es la teoria economica neoclasica pura

en dominacion hasta finales de los anos 80s: "the original neoclassical

paradigm".

3) teoria AbC

Esta asume que la economia y el ambiente son entes activos y que la

sociedad en un ente pasivo. La sociedad tiene que acomodarse a los

cambios economicos y ambientales pero el sistema economico debe de

reflejar las preocupaciones ambientales. Este es el famoso paradigma de

"eco-development".

4) teoria abC

Esta asume que solamente el ambiente es activo y que la actividad

economica y social debe de acomodarse a los cambios ambientales: "Deep

ecology".

5) teoria ABc.

Esta asume que tanto la economia como la sociedad son activos y

que solo el ambiente es pasivo. Asi el ambiente tiene que acomodarse a la

necidades economicas y sociales: "the socio-economic development

paradigma". Por el otro lado, los planes economicos tienen que reflejar

las preocupaciones sociales(basic needs).

6) teoria aBC

Esta asume que tanto la sociedad como el ambiente son activos y

que solo la economia es pasiva. Por lo tanto la economia tiene que

adaptarse a los combios sociales y ambientales: "the socio-ecological

development paradigm". Por el otro lado, los cambios sociales tienen que

ser compactibles con los cambios ambientales.

7) teoria aBc

Esta asume que solo la sociedad es un ente activo y que tanto la

economica como en ambiente son entes pasivos. Tanto la economia como el

ambiente tienen que adaptarse a las demandas sociales. "the socialist

society first paradigm"

8) teoria ABC

Esta asume que los tres sistemas son entes activos. Las

actividades economicas deben de reflejar las preocupaciones sociales y

ambientales. Las demandas sociales deben de reflejar las preocupaciones

economicas y ambientales. Los programas ambientales deben de reflejar las

preocupaciones economicas y sociales. "the sustainability paradigm".

Puntos generales:

1) las 8 teorias son consistentes con el concepto de "desarrollo

sostenido" y cada una refleja una ideologia diferente.

2) solamente la teoria numero 8(ABC) es consinte con el concepto de

desarrollo sostenible mas aceptado y que refleja la necesidad de

incorporar las preocupaciones economicas, sociales y ambientales en el

proceso de discusion, planificacion y ejecucion. Este es el concepto de

"sustainability" usado en paises desarrollados para evitar la

contradicciones de el concepto de "sustainable development".

3) solamente la teoria numero 8 es consistente con el concepto de

"sostenibilidad fuerte" ya que los tres sistemas son indispensables e

insustituibles.

4) Todas los otras teorias son consistentes con el concepto de

"sostenibilidad debil ya que por lo menos uno de los tres sistemas puede

ser manipulado sin afectar a los otros sistemas.

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

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

ideal de sostenibilidad serian bien claras. Por ejempo, si comparamos la

teoria AbC con la teoria ABC, esta claro que para que AbC sea "sostenible"

se tiene que incorporar la participacion social.

6) el sistema de teorias descrito facilitaria la clasificacion de todo los

programas de "desarrollo sostenido" que estan siendo implementados y

planeados actualmente.

Repito, el unico objetivo aca es mencionar la necesidad de

aclarar la tematica relacionada con el concepto de desarrollo sostenido en

order de facilitar la comprension no solo technica si que tambien no

technica de la problematica economica, social y ambiental en centro

america(paises subdesarrollados). Sin objetivos claros no hay opciones

claras pero hay que reconocer que la existencia de objetivos confusos no

refleja necesariamente una "posicion irracional".

Saludes a todos y espero que todos aprendamos un poco positivo de

esto, especialmente en latino america. Todas las ideas basicas y la

estructura de analisis son el resultado de mi curiosidad y no han sido

formalizadas todavia.

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

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

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

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

some interest here.

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

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

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

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

Subject: Choices

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

purposes in central america in order to determine local perceptions about

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

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

countries) aim at reaching sustainable underdevelopment in their journey

toward sustainability first instead of aiming at sustainable development?

Is the route toward sustainability the same for both developed and

developing countries?. Comments are welcome.

Dear Benevolent. To see if more people get interested I will add the

following, again with a positive spirit. Replies can be either in English

or Spanish:

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, The Benevolent Being wrote:

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

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

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

In my previous posting I highlighted that if we defined "sustainability"as

I defined it": sustainability = ABC system, then it is possible to

conceive the notion of "sustainable underdevelopment" and of "sustainable

development and the notion that without intervention(conquest) previously

sustainable underdeveloped systems(africa, centro america, latino

america...) would have evolved toward sustainable development systems,

what I call "the natural path to sustainability". At the time of

intervention(conquest), previously sustainable underdeveloped

systems(ABC) became unsustainable underdevelped systems. Hence, this

notion may allow for another alternative to the path to sustainability

currently being promoted: a one step move directly from unsustainable

underdevelopment to sustainable development. The alternative seems to

be, to go back to the natural path first: move from unsustainable

underdevelopment to sustainable underdevelopment and then later, move

from sustainable underdevelopment to sustainable development. A two

steps approach mean a more smooth approach in economic, social and in

environmental terms. According to this notion, the path to

sustainability for developed countries is a one step approach: make the

current unsustainable programs sustainable. We can add that developed

countries have the savings and do not have the social, economic and

environmental pressures that developing countries have to make a faster

transition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> sustainability.

This is related to the comment above. Yes, developed countries are

developing from current unsustainable programs to sustainable ones; which

does not affect their over all characteristic of being"developed" just as

the move from unsustainable to sustainable programs in developing

countries would not change their over all characteristic of

being"underdeveloped".

Your comments are welcome.

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

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

the positive side I bring the subject:

Another aspect that called my attention recently was the move of

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

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

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

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

policy in developing countries and what would be the potential benefits

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

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

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

sustainability efforts in those countries?

Greetings;

Dear Corinne. You just got angry. As you mention, there are good

intentions behind this proposal for CO2 sequestration and there may be

many benefits which should be exploited, I can see that and I have read

that. However, as you mentioned, the potential for mis-understanting when

you do not know the full story are high. I stated in my porting that

up to know, I have only seen the "potential positives aspects of this

policy highlighted, not the potential negative consequences that may be

attached to it. Do you see any potential negative consequences? Are the

organizations in the USA holding areas for CO2 sequestration that you

mentioned selling Bonds too?. Your comments are welcome and hopefully are

constructive.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 cschmidt03@sprynet.com wrote:

> Lucio:

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

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

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

> preserving forests in LDCs to absorb carbon from industrialized countries'

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

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

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

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

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

> conceded to an NGO supported by U.S. conservation groups): they

> believed(sincerely) that it was part of a plot to eventually start oil

> drilling in the park. That they were mistaken was not the point. Nor was the

> point that the NGO might manage the park better than the government could.

> The problem was the perception of a privatization of "national interests."

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

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

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

> political minefield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trade offs of international borrowing for developing countries

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

sustainability or unsustainability. The trade offs of promoting a

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

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

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

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

developing countries and there is not regulation, full forest conversion

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

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

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

developed countries is created by policies like the CO2 sequestration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

extreme solutions?

Greetings to all.

Lucio

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Bud Kenworthy wrote:

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

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

> financing reforestation through current programs of financial incentives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> impact on United States civil society. International trade in

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

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

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

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

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

> ordinary citizens directly experience the tradeoffs. Carbon bonds may

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Bud Kenworthy wrote:

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

> that I think we all agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apropriate land use planning, reforestation, clear property rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

policy in all tropical countries on FREE TRADE?

>What happens if instead of discussing land as a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

potencial negatives.

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

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

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

> techniques.

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

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

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

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

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

>Promoting reforestation or maintaining existing forests in

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

> conversion of suitable agricultural lands to forests.

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

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

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

these good intentions.

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

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

>requires "getting land use right"?

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

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

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

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

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

right economic land use may maximize economic

benefits while having no impact on or worsening social and environmental

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

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

consistent with economic, social and environmental concerns.

> Governments have the tools for doing this.

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

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

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

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

the policies being implemented in the region to increased the rentability

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

right price or land use" consideration that you mentioned.

How will the CO2 sequestration policy affects this "right price

considerations"?

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

> outside funding with inside control.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

less predictable.

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

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

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

>offer one potential mechanism for maximizing

> separation. Costa Rica has experimented with endowments for environmental

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

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

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

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

> reality. Thanks, Bud

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

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

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

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

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

with sustainability? That is to be sorted out.

Dear Bud, thanks for your comments;

Greetings;

Lucio

Note:

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

let's look for a more interesting topic.

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

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

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

ignorance or lack of respect for positive and constructive thinking in

this list.

Lucio Munoz

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 an Eleaner wrote:

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

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

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

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

> clear-cutting) that get the tax breaks.

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

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

related to the CO2 bonds in Costa Rica.

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 ---The Eleaner wrote:

• WHat are CO2 sequestration bonds and how do they work? Are they like
• Selling emmision credits?

> confused or possibly just ignorant

Estimado W….. Yo no tengo problemas con alguien exprese su punto

de vista dentro de el contexto de discusion. Eso es parte de la dinamica

de "sustenibilidad". No crees que ese punto de vista fue enviado fuera de

contexto de mi discusion?. O crees que se relaciona con las politicas

necesarias para contrarestar los consecuencias potenciales negativas

relacionadas con la politica de CO2 en discusion? O cual es la coneccion

que usted mira?. Es geominist un nombre o organizacion o nada?Parece que

usted sabe pero yo no se. Mis disculpas por esta reaccion. Ahora me

voy a calmar.

Sinceramente.

Lucio Munoz.

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, JC W. wrote:

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

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

> valido.

> Saludos,

> JCWB

>

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

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

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

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

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

> > this list.

• > Lucio Munoz
• > > On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 –an Eleaner --wrote:

> >

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

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

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

> > > recycling, reforesting, de-construction, etc. It's the capital-intensive

> > > ones (e.g.,clear-cutting) that get the tax breaks.

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

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

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

have not just economic based market incentives but also environmentally

based market incentives. In this scenario, the policy recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comments are welcome.

Have a nice weekend!

Dear friends, as requested by Elaine Espino, Jeff and others, here is a

copy of the original article about the CO2 bond policy in Costa Rica.

It was the reading of this article which led me to develop all those ideas

I decided to share with you. I am interested in sharing, not just ideas,

but the creation of ideas with people who are concerned with the

sustainability of the future in developing countries and particularly in

central america. Remenber, ignorance when information is incomple is

justified, but under complete or full information is not. Now,

pretending to be ignorant to make a point is another thing. Hope we

leave this behind and you bring your own ideas to the discusion after you

read the article.

Greetings to all.

Sincerely;

Lucio

........FORWARDED MESSAGE FOR DISCUSION PURPOSES/NO PROFIT/NO PERMISSION

FROM THE ORIGINAL SENDER WAS REQUESTED AND I HOPE THIS IS APPROPRIATE.

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

Date sent: Tue, 20 May 1997 07:08:33 -0600

Send reply to: Thomas McKenzie <mckenzie@SOL.RACSA.CO.CR>

From: Thomas McKenzie <mckenzie@SOL.RACSA.CO.CR>

Subject: Money in CO2 To:

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

This was published today in the La Nacion newspaper in Costa

Rica. I hope you find it interesting. I've translated only

part of the one full page article: but I believe you could

see their www.nacion.co.cr homepage for more details.

TO SELL THE INVISIBLE

The following describes an ecological business which Costa

Rica is trying to promote. THE SITUATION TODAY Nation A: has

much industry and automobiles which contaminate the air

Nation B: generates little contamination and has much

forests which clean the air The country A doesn't par

anything to country B for the servies it provides in

purifying the air. That is to say, country B has a positive

externality, as it is called in economics circles (a benefit

for which i does not receive any income). THE NEW BUSINESS

Land Owner -- if you have forests and promise to conserve

it, the State will pay you US$50 per hectare each year for 5

years. If you have a forest under explitation, you can

receive $44 per hectare for 5 years. If you reforest your

land, the State will pay $5 per hectare for 15 years,

payable during the first 5 years. When the trees are

harvested at maturity, the landowner is free to sell without

restrictions. The State -- makes payments to the landowner.

The State then calculates its CTO (Greenhous Gas Emissions

Mitigation Certificate) based on: each cubic meter of

standing wood absorbs on-quarter of a ton of Carbon.

Therefore, for every four cubic meters of timber, it puts a

minimum price of US$10.00. Theses certificates issued by

the State guatantee that there is standing trees sucking up

Carbon, which the State then tries to sell. The amount of

certificates to sell is only limited by the enrolled

inventories of standing timber. The Commercializer -- Centre

Financial Products Limited is the first company that has

bought the first emission of CTO's. They will place these

certificates on the Chigago Stock Exchange. However, anyone

could buy the sertificates if they wished to. Contaminating

Companies -- in the stock exchange, the companies which are

contaminating can also buy CTO's: and in this way they

partially pay society for the contamination which they

generate. They too can resell their acquired certificates.

Conservation goups could also participate in this new form of

business. >> Source: based on La Nacion's interviews with

Franz Tattenbach Capra, coordinator of the Ofincina

Costarricese de Implementacion Conjunto -- Join

Implementation Committee)

Further notes in the article show that Centre Financial

Products bought 1,000 tons; the government of Norway bought

100,000 tons. Hopefully, Costa Rica will promote some

15,000,000 tons of CTO's for their special Trust Fund.

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

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

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

the environmental knowledge that is taking place in lain

America at the university level(Environmentally/sustainability

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

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

Given the confusion related to using the concept of sustainable

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

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

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

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

university programs in different Latino American countries I noted

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

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

comparability between "sustainable development programs in the same

country and in different countries because each program reflects different

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

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

America.

Greetings to all;

Sincerely;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

beaurocratization of knowledge, but rememember that the homogenization and

beaurocratization of environmental knowledge in latino america may not be

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

being exported to latino american universities, since it makes economic

sense. Why to bring students and professionals from developing countries

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

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

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

"locally". Carlos thank you for your comment.

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Carlos ---wrote:

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

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

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

> economic model that are the causes of "unsustainability"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> whole concept of humanity and our relatinship with nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

economic based and environmentally based the implication of the

subsidization mechanism would change. Just imagine for a second what

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

environmentally based market incentives were placed highter than those

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

In this scenario is reasonable to expect that environmental quality will

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

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

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

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

but it matters to "sustainable development" because without subsidies

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

Your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

> Carlos S. F. T.,

> Jeff S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"sustainability", but constructive discourse may.

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

I will retreat from this topic for a while.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

> Here! Here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

> ones.

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

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

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

environmental and social regulations enacted up to today to make for

"sustainable development" change the actual behavior of economic based

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

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

introduced environmentally based and socially based market incentives,

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

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

change anything in the long term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

theoretical base to that possition and options to conteract FREE TRADE

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

dilema.

Greetings to all;

Lucio

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

> Lucio,

> Jeff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear W….., I would like you to take a closer look at what THE DP1

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

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

yes, please tell me why do you believe so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC W… wrote:

> Dear all:

>

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

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

> behavior at best) whereas the foundation for sustainability is

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

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

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

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

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

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

> dependency-generating, DP1 structures into participative democratic

> (ideal-seeking) ones.

> Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The terminolgoy used will be similar for comparison purposes:

A= manager role is active

a= manager role is passive

B= participant role is active

b= participant role is passive

From the logical combination of these characteristics we can developed the

following four theories:

1) theory Ab

This theory assumes that the manager role is active and the

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

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

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

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

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

2) Theory aB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Theory ab

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

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

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

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

4) Theory AB

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVE INTERACTION OF THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE SYSTEM

In conclusion;

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

sustainability since the postulate DP2 assumes that one element of the

system is passive: the coordinator or manager.

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

is consistent with the framework I have proposed.

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

"sustainable development".

As always comments are welcome;

Greetings to all;

Lucio

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, JC W. wrote:

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

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

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

> important to maintain a contextualistic perspective, thus avoiding the

> extreme positions of dogmatism and utter skepticism.

Dear Glenn. You have no comments on the about 20 messages I sent?.

It is interesting, the most important question for Latino America should

be "how to take advantage of the sustainability discourse to get better

deals and hence this topic should have lead to "open constructive

discourse" in our latino american list, yet not many key players wanted to

take the heat. Any how, my excuses if I annoyed you and the majority of

the list.

Sincerely;

Lucio

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Glenn S. wrote:

> Dear Friends:

>

> Having received about 20 messages concerning your interesting discussion

> with W…., I wonder whether others in the conference would agree that

> perhaps you should now carry on the discussion between yourselves, rather

> than sharing it with the hundreds of people who receive the conference

> elan.

Estimado W…. There is not misunderstanding at all. For the

search conference to work, you need a search conference manager. In fact,

there are whole chapters on how "to manage the search conference" and tips

for would be search conference managers: Part three, Pp. 210-235. THE

SEARCH CONFERENCE/1996/Emery & Purser.

My goal was not to critize the work of Emery and Purser or their

assumptions since this approach seems to me better than the top-down

approach. My goal was to show you that the DP2 is the antithesis of DP1

and that DP2 is not consistent with sustainability, meaning "strong

sustainability". Now DP2 is consistent with "sustainable development",

and since I showed that sustainable development is consistent with "weak

sustainability" then it can be said that DP2 is consistent with weak

sustainability too.

Remenber, the age of any theoretical framework or appraoch does

not guarantee their survival through time. This is part of the unending

process of making and unmaking approaches and theories. Please, review

the pages I listed and tell me if there is a need or not for a search

conference manager for the approach to work. Also tell me if it is

assumend or not that the impact of the presence of the manager of the

search conference on the behavior of the participant will be marginal

and minimize throught cummulated experience. "There is not

misunderstanding at all": you need a manager and you need to assume that

when the conference manager is "resolving" deadlocks he has no effect on

the behaviors of the elements of the deadlocks.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC W..wrote:

> Estimado Lucio:

>

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

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

> different characteristics of DP1 and DP2 structures since you talk about

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

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

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

> manager/supervisor as DP1 structures which assume that people are

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

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

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

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

> the US. I wonder why??? :)

> Kind regards,

> JC W…

Dear friends, just a few more thouthts. In the discussion was established

that "sustainability" and "sustainable development" are not the same

thing. Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

"sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

"sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

Your comments are welcome.

Greetings;

Lucio

Dear W…, it seems from the above that your clear cut answers

to my questions are that yes you need a conference manager and that yes it

is assumed that his presence has no "influence". Therefore I stick to my

comments since I do not think that the 1996 book is wrong.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC W.. wrote:

> The role of the SC & PDW manager is to control the time, process, and

> environment, NOT the content, for the content is up to the participants

> who will have to live with the consequences.

.....You are assuming that the presence of the SC & PDW manager does not

influence the behaviour of the participants. It may, specially when

helping "por ejemplo campesinos analfabetos" in less developed countries

who are weary and worry about the "Ingeniero/Maestro" trying to help them.

> ANSWER: Again, the SC manager's job is to manage the process NOT its

> content. In addition, conflicts are NOT resolved but RATIONALIZED! (big

> difference).

....You are reafirming your assumption of "not influence"

Dear W….. I know that there are some people that believe that yes

we can use the same theory and there is no need for readjustments and I

would like to know why they think so. There are also people that believe

that we can not use the same microeconomic theory and that we have to

reajust it to deal with sustainability and I would like to know why

they think so. I would like to know this two views and their merits from

others in the list.

Have a nice weekend;

Lucio

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, JC W…. wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> > Since existing microeconomic theory provides the

> > bases(economic incenvives and desincentives) that underline the

> > "sustainable development" paradigm, then is it possible to address

> > "sustainability" using the same microeconomic theory?

>

> Estimado Lucio, the answer has to be a big NO. Unless of course we want to

> continue trying to fool ourselves for a little longer.

> Saludos,

> JC

Estimado Carlos. Me hubiera gustado contestarle este mensaje y extender

la discusion un poco mas pero se ma ha informado privadamente que "que

este topico es esoterico, trivial y parece que no es considerado apropiado

para esta lista". Por lo tanto, me conprometi a abandonarlo.

Mis mas sinceras disculpas;

Sinceramente;

Lucio

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Carlos ….. wrote:

> Esimado Lucio:

> El problema es mas bien metodologico.

> Las herramientas teoricas de la microeconomia convencional se disennaron

> en su momento por los padres fundadares de la ortodoxia neoclasica , por

> ejemplo Walras, para explicara la formacion de los precios en bienes

> reproducibles, producibles, apropiables y, evidentmente, utiles.

> Es decir un precio adecuado, incita la reproduccion de un bien momentanea

> mente escazo si tiene las carcteristicas que anuncie arriba.

> Un precio muy alto no resucita los dinosaurios , para poner un ejemplo

> extremo. La reproduccion de la naturaleza y los activos naturales, tiene

> una logica distinta, de tipo natural, a la cual la ortodoxia economica no

> parece que quiera tener en cuenta.

> Si ademas, tomamos en cuenta ya otros activos de la naturaleza como la

> energia, la segunda ley de la termodinamica (la energia se degrada

> irrevocablemente en su uso) coloca a la ortodoxia en una situacion mas

> embarazosa.

> El texto clasico de Gerogescu La ley de la entrpia y el proceso economico,

> efectua una discusion creo que contundente contra la ortodoxia que

> prentende , mediante un precio adecuado, revertir los procesos que la

> caprichosa naturaleza, ha colocado como irreversibles, no circulares.

> Cordial saludo

> Carlos

> Posgrado en Ciencias Economicas

> Universidad Nacional de Colombia- MEDELLIN

Dear John. This statement under the current development model is true,

specially if we assume that the polluter pay principle will continue

to be an ideal and therefore a moral issue. The literature shows

that the market, the way it is, has not been and is not the right place

for equity issues[social pollution(poverty); non-market social

services...], and environmental issues(environmental pollution, non-market

environmental servises...). This is the main reason why there is welfare

economics and positive economics. Does this means that the market can not

be made consistent with economic, social and environmental issues?

Comments are welcome.

Lucio

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, John wrote:

> It does seem that until the manufacture of wastes becomes more

> profitable than whatever the products are which create the wastes,

> there will never be sufficient economic incentive which would reduce

> waste -only moral: which is an ideal.

> Saludos,

> John

Dear Glenn. I can not believe that you are saying that "human behavior"

is of little interest for "the environment in latino america list". In fact,

It may be possible that human behavior is the most "important explanatory

mechanism" of the apparent mismatched between theory and practice in

terms of the environmental/deforestation discourse in developing

countries. This seems to be the case in central america

according to my preliminary findings and according to the survey

of local and regional perceptions. Because "human behavior"

seems to be such an important factor in the "sustainable

development/sustainability discourse I decided to start the

"sustainability discussion". Basically, "human behavior" is the

one hidden in the concept of sustainable development and "human

behavior" is the one that the "sustainability framework" I

proposed is trying to uncover. Moreover, it can be shown that

"human behavior"(the economic man) may be behind our unsustainable

development and is keeping out other types of behavior(economic

based altruistic and social behavior, environmentally based

altruistic and social behavior....). Finally, it can be shown,

that human behavior has to be changed(by means of economic based,

environmentally based and socially based market incentives and

regulations) to achieve "sustainability". If human behavior is not

important as a discussion topic in order to create more sustainable ways

of living in latino america, please tell me which one it is and lets

explore it. My thesis seems to indicate that this topic is important,

however, this topic can be approached from different angles, if you

do not agree with mine. Let me know what is your angle and I will

respect it.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Glenn wrote:

> Dear Friends:

>

> I think that Elan should decide whether it is a bulletin board for esoteric

> interpersonal discussions, or whether it will at least attempt to focus

> discussions on more specific issues relating to environment in Latin

> America.

> The human behavior discussion is of little interest, I am sure, to most of

> the subscribers, and I would call on the conference administrator to try to

> channel this discussion between the two parties, rather than to all Elan

> subscribers.

> If I am being out of order, then please remove my name from the list, as

> this is not what I expected when I signed up.

> Glenn

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Antonio wrote:

> To Lucio, "Geonomist", John, JCW and others:

>

> No one can have any illusions about the ethics of markets. Marketers,

> like polititians and lawyers, usually strive to do, at best, what is

> possible. At worst, they do what they can get away with.

Human beings have always followed ideals(theories or real persons)

in their attemp to get better. For example, god, the perfect market,

sustainability...Hence it is natural human behavior. However, when

talking about the market, we have to be careful when talking about

"marketers and polititians" because at least in "scientific theory" they

are not comparable: the marketers are assumed to be rational individuals

and the politians and dictators are considered irrational individuals(it

could be shown in my own framework too). Is anybody familiar with the

"Lapier Experiment"? He showed that "individuals do not do what they say

they will do and when they do, they appear to do what they said they would

not do". This is part of the "irrational man" that is lost when

rationality is assumed(this leaves only the marketers as rational men in

the market). Who may display riskier behavior when there are external

shocks in the market as you mentioned, the rational or the irrational

man?.

> If economies sought to do what was possible IN THE LONG TERM, if business

> quarters referred to centuries and not years, for example, there would be

> far less need for this discussion.

There would be not much need for this discussion if the economy

would have reflected economic, social and environtal concerns since the

beginning of the marketization of traditional production systems. That

way there would not be need for us to be here trying to figure out how to

efficiently patched the social and environmental holes left out by the

economic only based model.

>The only sound demand I believe companies can

> make about the draconian steps needed to safeguard our and possibly their

> future is that the new sustainable order apply equally to all.

This is true from the developed country point of view. However, what are

the options for developing countries for example in the face of free

trade talks? Do they have options?

Your comments are welcome.

Greetings;

Lucio