On Wed, 22 Jul 1998, Kathy wrote:

> >ELAN:

> >

> >Is there any country in the world where corporations and their

> >development schemes are not subsidized to some extent?

> >

> >John

>

> Good question. None that I know of.

.......In theory there will be always subsidies as long as we stay

in any form of "sustainable development" because as long as there

is unbalaced economic, social and environmental growth subsidies are

going to be needed to "sustain" the pieces of the system that are

out of balance.

.......

>

> Instead we get the call for "incentives"-- ways of massaging markets to

> persuade private economic actors to adopt more efficient, less polluting,

> more "sustainable" technologies and resource use choices.

.......There are positive and negative incentives. From the definition

provided it seems to refer to positive incentives. Negative incentives

are the ones supposely called "purversive incentives". However, a

perverse incentive for some can be a positive incentive for others if

there is not a point of reference and this makes everything confusing.

For example, if perververse incentives are incentives that subsidize

unsustainable development, then it implies that non-perverse incentives

are the ones that encourage "sustainable development", which is something

I suspect many may disagree with. For example, it could be claimed, in

theory, that "unsustainable development is in essence sustainable

development". One easy way out of this confusion would be to define

subsidies as follows:

a) PS = SB(SD), which indicates that perverse subsidies(PS)

are subsidies(SB) aimed at "sustainable development(SD)";

b) NPS = SB(S), which indicates that non-perverse

subsidies(NPS) are subsidies(SB) aimed at "sustainability(S)".

Now with a clear point of reference, it is clear what we need to

do to make perverse subsidies non-perverse.

........

>

> I have yet to hear about an "incentive" that doesn't boil down to some form

> of subsidy from states or multilaterial institutions (eg, below-market rate

ort> loans) and/or consumers (eg, higher prices for "eco-friendly" timber

> products").

........I may be mistaken, I do not think you will find it. Incentives

and subsidies may the the oposite side of the same coin. Subsidies can be

positive or negative incentives, depeding on who recieve it and incentives

can be positive or negative subsidies depending of their impact on the

desired goal.

........

> A year ago, I quizzed a representative of the IFC (the World Bank's private

> sector arm.) I asked him to explain the basis of IFC's "environmental"

> projects, and he wasn't able to come up with any program that did not

> involve some sort of subsidy. But I haven't made a systematic survey, so

> I'd really like to hear of an "incentive" that isn't a subsidy.

......Enviromental projects or any other project may need incentives to

fix or restore something and/or to prevent something and each of them

required an incentive in todays world and these incentives, specially in

Developing Countries, takes the form of subsidies. I would be happy to

hear if you know a subsidy that it is not an incentive?.

>

> But markets are ALWAYS structured, regulated, and subsidied by states or

> supra-state institutions. The issue is not "subsidies vs no subsdiies,"

> but rather "subsidies for what and for whom."

......I agree with this. Once when the "perversive incentives's Book" was

being introduced I asked something similar to what has been argued here

and I indicated in that comment, if am not mistaken, that the issue was

"how to make perverse incentive non-perverse", but there was no answer.

Very good comments Kathy.

Greetings;

Lucio

Just a comment: This report indicates that there are many factors

affecting water quality and supply: people(human waste),industries

(industrial waste), and agriculture(quimicals used plus

waste)... The report also seems to indicate that people impacts

are not the primary source of water pollution, so why the conclusion that

population is the main problem and it must be reduced. Any other

explanation?.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, John wrote:

> Report: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

>

> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2pm (EST), Wednesday, August 26, 1998

>

> Hopkins Report: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

>

> Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages

> today. By 2025 the number will explode fivefold to 2.8 billion

> people--35% of the world's projected total of 8 billion

> people--according to a new report from The Johns Hopkins University

> School of Public Health.

>

> "To avoid catastrophe...it is important to act now" to reduce demand for

> water by slowing population growth, according to the Population Reports

> issue, Solutions for a Water-Short World, published by the Johns Hopkins

> Population Information Program. At the same time, warns the Hopkins

> report, countries must conserve water, pollute less, and manage supply

> and demand better.

Dear John. Thank you for your comment. I think similar conclusions

could be drawn by working on the demand side of other factors included

in the study such as Industry and Agriculture. And since these other

factors are apparently bigger water polluters according to this study,

then, in theory, more efficiency gains could be obtained by focusing on

the bigger polluters first. However, the enphasis seems to be on a

less polluting factor and it was this that called my attention.

I will read the full report to get a better sense of the

situation;

Greetings;

Lucio

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, John wrote:

> building "engineered" responses, I guess their ultimate "demand side

management" means

> that you not only reduce the demand for water by a population, but that you

also reduce

• the size of the population who depend on the water source.

Dear friends. I am looking for recent studies in the deforestation literature

about Central America combining the concepts deforestation, perceptions, y

planning, and specially if using perceptions and deforestation?. I would like

to find some recent studies that can allow me to compare my findigs. Thanks

in advance for your attention.

Greetings;

Lucio

Queridos Amigos/as. Estoy interesado en encontrar studios

recientes en Centro America que combinen los conceptos de deforestacion,

percepciones y planificacion, especialmente studios que combinen

percepciones y deforestation. Necesito encontrar estudios que

puedan compararse con mis resultados. Gracias con anticipacion por su

atencion. Saludes;

Lucio

Estimado Prof. Moya. Aparentemente su mensaje refleja dos preocupaciones,

una relacionada al uso de el Espan~ol solamente y el otro a el uso de el

termino medio ambiente(Environment).

La preocupacion de usar solo Espan~ol no es nueva. Aquellos que

tienen tiempo de ser miembros de ELAN recordaran que hace un tiempo

dio una intensa discusion de esto mismo y se acordo que habia

libertad de enviar contribuciones en Espan~ol, Ingles o ambos. Desde

entonces observe que la participacion de profesionales y personas en

general viviendo en paises latino americanos es bien baja, demasiado baja

en mi opinion. Lo que se necesita hacer es buscar la forma de PROMOVER la

participacion de gente de habla hispana pare que se establesca la agenda y

discutir situaciones importantes a nivel local. No es secreto que la

majoria de discusiones en ELAN tienen un sabor mas que todo global y no

local. Sin participacion en Espan~ol de nada serviria tener una lista.

Con respecto a uso de el termino medio ambiente como traduccion

literal de ENVIRONMENT, no hay que olvidarse que la mala traduccion de

terminos no es necesariamente una equivocacion. Terminos con

significados generales o confusos son usualmente bien recibidos.

Lo mismo pasa con la traduccion de otros terminos como por ejemplo

"Sustainable Development". Cada quien GO o NGO o corporacion turistica o

no lo traduce aparentemente a conveniencia y el termino en si lo permite.

Restriccion no es la forma correcta de solucionar estas situaciones, ya

que es el grado de uso de terminos el que al final determina si ese

termino se agrega formalmente a esa lengua o no.

En todo caso espero que esta nueva ronda de e-mail lleva como

resultado a una major participacion local en la agenda general de ELAN.

Saludes;

Lucio

Queridos amigos. Muchas gracias a las personas que respondieron a

my pedido de informacion relacionado a investigaciones integrando teoria

en deforestacion, practica, y percepciones con el objetivo de llegar a

comprender mejor los procesos de deforestacion. No investigacion fue

encontrada direcatmente haciendo esto. Como es de esperar, la comparacion

de estos tres componentes lleva a un proceso de validacion/generacion de

teoria, practica, y percepciones, y a un proceso de validacion/generacion

de politicas. Usualmente, las percepciones no son incluidas en

investigaciones restringiendo el analisis a teoria y practica. Como es

bien reconocido, las percepciones son de mucha importancia, incluyendolas

puede que lleve a resultados inesperados.

Muchas gracias a las personas que respondieron amablemente a mi

solicitud.

Sinceramente;

Lucio

Dear friends. Thank you very much to the people who answered my

quary about research integrating deforestation theory, practice, and

perceptions in order to get a better understanding of deforestation

processes. No research could be found directly doing this. As it should

be expected, the matching of these three components leads to a process of

validation/generation of theory, practice, and perceptions, and to a

process of policy validation/generation. Usually, perceptions are left

out of the picture narrowing the analysis of theory and practice. Since

it is wellknown that perceptions matter, adding them may lead to

surprising results.

Thanks again to those who responded kindly to my request.

Sincerely;

Lucio

Hello John. I think that a good lesson to learned from Mitch is

that a paramount focus on protecting/conserving/using remaining

forest areas is not good enough to minimize environemtal and social

degradation. The lack of focus, and resources on restoring/reparing/

reclaiming deforested areas may be the main problem as soil,

infrastructure and people are more vulnerable. This has not been a

priority.

It is not a secret that most of the land area in Central America

is deforested and that some critical areas(the ones affected by mitch)

needed to be fixed or reclaim or restore or re-enforce quickly. However,

the focused has been on how to deal with the remaining forested areas.

There is no doubt in my mine now that there will have to be a

shift from "ecodevelopment" to " socio-econdevelopment" to water down the

social and environmental consequence of this dissaster in the medium and

long-term. If not, it is very likely that a "social dissaster" will fuel

a full fletch enviromental disaster in Central America. This could have

effects on neigboring areas and regions.

Mitch impact in the short term is to worsen the rate of social

decline, and its dual impact(rich/poor) on the rate of environmental

decline, and to highlight the importance of the social component now.

Let's see how the development paradigm evolve under these circunstances.

Sadly, extreme events are needed to refocused policy issues and

priorities, and this is one of those cases. THE PATH LEFT BY MITCH COULD

BE A GOOD PLACE TO START.

Greetings;

Lucio

Note: comments are welcome.

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, John wrote:

> Central America: Quality of Environmental Shows Rapid Decline

>

> WASHINGTON, (Nov. 3) IPS - At the same time that Central America had

> developed ecological reserves, the environmental quality of the

> biologically-diverse region was in rapid decline, according to "State of

> Environment," a joint report by non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

> the United Nations, and international financial institutions.

Just a comment: The attention that the very likely positive relationship

between these two factors has generated(flooding, mudslides, and so on are

or can be framed as deforestation related enviromental problems) should be

used to review past resource restauration and conservation policies in

Central America(no just Honduras and Nicaragua), if we are serious about

doing it better next time. We do not know where Mitch II will show up.

However, the path left by mitch can easily be picked up

next time by Mitch II if nothing is learned from this and done.

A policy focused on all deforested areas in Central America should

be the aim in the short and medium term because those areas are the

most likely to have the biggest damage and where no much work has been

done. However, this shift in enphasis should be carried

out without abandoning conservation goals, but as integral parts. As

deforested areas are reclaimed it should be expected to see the

pressures on remaining forest areas reduced and biodiversity levels

increased. Can the Kyoto protocol be geared toward facing and reducing

these types of situation and risks and a source of funds?. After all,

Mitch for sure has contributed stocks of CO2 to be released little by

little, in land and in the ocean. We should remember that it is not over

yet since the relationship between rain and global warming seems to be

just starting to pick up more unpredictable.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Tom wrote:

> Dear ELANeros,

>

> I agree instinctively with ACERCA's claim that deforestation had an impact

> on the degree of destruction and loss of life caused by the torrential

> rains accompanying Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua. HOWEVER, readers should be

> aware that NO study has been undertaken as yet to determine if this is fact

> or speculation. The area most affected by mudslides (rather than flooding -

> which may or may not have been exacerbated by the amount of silt in the

> rivers), Chinandega Department, has only within the last week been

> re-opened to ground traffic. The loss of life in Posoltega, the worst

> single event, is attributable to a mudslide engendered when the cone of La

> Casita Volcano collapsed.

A second positive comment: The article attached indicates that

"deforestation worsen Mitch's toll", not that deforestation caused mitch

or its disasters. It list, according to local expert's perceptions the

different possible contributing factors, direct or indirect, of

deforestation and their posible role in the exacerbating the toll of the

desaster. Press releases may or may not be based on hard data.

However, assuming that it is based on hard data, would just the

banning of logging, in particular, or human use of wood, in general, alone

stop or reduced the severity of Mitch II?. My guess is no. So we should

"think locally, plan locally, and act locally", but consitent with

regional and global conditions. This means to search for viable

alternatives to the status qou. I think we should start this time with a

compromised approach based on wide public participation. I hope to see

that in the short term.

Comments are welcome;

Lucio

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, ACERCA wrote:

> Hi folks,

>

> I really don't want to get into an email feud with folks and wasn't going

> to respond but...

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

> Tom Fletcher wrote--

> My objective in commenting on the ACERCA article was cautionary: let's

> remember the scientific method and avoid making unsupported statements.

> Especially if the purpose is for pointless political gamesmanship.

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

> so I'll respond to some of the above...first of all ACRECA transferred a

> Press Release--not an article-- sent out by the Nicaragua Network

> Environmental Task Force (which we are a part of).

A theoretical comment: To get a better undestanding of the relationship of

the many factors that may influence the degree of devastation in an area

or region, we can simplify the problem as follows:

D = DF + M;

Where; D = Devastation

DF = Deforestation

M = Mitch

This model simply says that Devastation(environmental, economic,

and social) takes place when there is deforestation(DF) or when there is a

"Mitch(M)" or when both are present. Therefore, Deforestation(DF) or

Mitch(M) are sufficient, but not necesary conditions for Devastation(D) to

take place. For example, even when there is not deforestation, a storm

like Mitch should be expected to cause devastation. The model also

indicates that when both Deforestation(DF) and Mitch(M) are present, the

devastation may be the most severe, which seems to be the case this time

in the areas affected. Also the model indicates that the only way we

humans with present technology and knowledge can influence the degree of

Devastation(D) is through influencing the agents driving deforestation

since we are powerless against "Mitches". This is the only entry point to

minimize as much as possible the degree of degradation, and it is this

entry point that needs to be put thought an open minded and consensus

based decision-making and implementation approach.

The sharing of the above framework is done with the purpose of

higlighting two possible practical/theoretical difficulties that the

research proposed by Mr. Fletcher has to address: a) how can the before

and after analysis of damage separate the devastation associated to

deforestation and that associate with mitch itself?; and b) is the study

going to consider the tree cover removed by mitch as deforestation or as

simple land degradation.

Greetings;

Lucio

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Tom wrote:

> I also personally believe there is a direct correlation between the level

> of deforestation and the level of damage. However, it hasn't been studied

> here yet. That's one of the questions we plan on trying to answer. In

> addition, there have been some anecdotal and second-hand reports that

> appear anomolous. My team has a kind of unique opportunity - we have great

> baseline data on several sites in the disaster zones. We can at least begin

> to look at changes and comparing the level of damage in forested areas and

> deforested. Our plan is to conduct baseline environmental impact

> assessments on several sites (forested, deforested, and frontier) then

> compare it with previous data from the same sites. I think we're going to

• see a positive correlation, but that's only my hypothesis.

Just a comment: By the time of the Central American independence

from Spain(1821), deforestation was not a problem in Central America,

neither in El Salvador. Then, a model of agro-export led development was

made priority, which has been constantly shifting as a result of the very

volatil nature of the global demand for those agricultural products.

Every shift in this agro-export model was apparently accompained

by more new areas being deforested. In some cases, the over all export

model had to be changed and in others, it was put through a process of

"diversification". The expropriation of communal lands around cities(or

easy accesible) or restrictions imposed on traditional users of those

lands on future use exacerbated more the problem and forced them to move

to the remaining forest area, but usually not to steep hill sides since

flat land was still accesible.

As this model continue its constanly shifting process, they took

over the new deforested areas created by the poor and the landless that

were appropriate to it(it was more cost efficient than opening new areas

from the ground up), and started pushing the poor and the landless more

and more into steeper areas every time. Right now we are reaching the

top pushing effect of this model of development and the landless and poor

have no more ground to climb.

Hence, the increasing trend in deforested areas in Central America

started a long time ago when the poor and the landless had plenty of land

accessible to them to practice "sustainable shifting agriculture". All

national and international statistics about the amount of deforested areas

are public and therefore well known as well as the risk of not doing

something about it. However, no much was done then, and has been

done up to the day Mitch hit. Mitch is a clear example that the

assumption of the neo-economic model that social and environmental impacts

are minimal is false.

The focus in the region since the 1970s has been on

protecting/regulating the remaining forest areas, aparently because it is

more cost-effecient than reforesting 50 % to 60% of Central America.

From the above, it can be concluded that the model of

agro-export development has been the driving force pushing rich(to the

best open lands) that fit the model at each time, and the poor and

landless to the everytime to higer ground and steeper hills.

The question is what can be done to bring the poor and the

landless down the hills?. They can not go to the protected areas by

law(at least in paper), they can not go to the remaining forest areas

because that means new deforestation(at least it is a difficult option for

government officials to choose). And they can not just move to the

private best open lands due to the respect for private property. Hence,

if reforestation is now made a priority, where can the landless and the

poor(the majority of the population) go to carve their daily living?.

Yes, at the pick of the development model the poor and the

landless have a clear role in deforestation, but that was not the case at

indepencence time.

Comments are welcome.

...........

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Billie wrote:

> HURRICANE MITCH: HUMAN CAUSES OF A NATURAL CATASTROPHE

Given the limitations I mentioned in my previous message and

assuming they are binding, there seems to be two remaining options to

bringing the poor people and landless people down the hills: a) if the

reforestation process of critical areas is done with the permanent goal of

not allowing them to comeback or stay, then they have to be relocated to

less critical deforested areas or to cities(internal migration) or to other

countries(legal/ilegal external migration). Hence while the critical

areas recover, the pressure goes to else where, but the source is still

there, and now in a mixed form. Usually mixed forms are more explosive;

and b) if reforestation is done in a way that sustainably atached the poor

and the landless to those trees, or to sustainably re-incorporate them

later perhaps minimizing their environmental demage post reforestation,

then perhaps the forces can be dissipated in situ.

However, each choice has the potencial to backfire, and sent this

poor people and landless pressure faster back to the ramining forest, or

protected areas or private property if not well planned. This is because

if the reforestation program leads to just to another contraint to access

to land(already constraint almost to the maximum), then the landless and

the poor have nothing to lose anyway(under this conditions life is usually

worthless).

Comments welcome;

Lucio

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Philip wrote:

> Your excellent question about what can be done to bring the poor down the

> hills is highly appropriate, and, in my belief requires multiple spearheads

> involving:

Dear Mr. Flecher. Last time I tried to raise some questions that

the design of your proposed study of damage assessment by Mitch may have,

and according to your posting, even though it is more carefully reworded,

the issues still ramain for you and your team to take a closer look at it.

Again the problem under study can be summarize as follows:

F = D + R ; where D = Deforestation

R = Rain levels

F = Flooding and landslide damage

This model leads to four different essenarios:

a) F = Dr ; damage is driven by Deforestation

b) F = dR ; damage is driven by Rain

c) F = DR ; damage is maximum when driven by both Deforestation and Rain

d) f = dr ; damage is minimal when there is no deforestation and no rain

According to the general goal of your study in part I you are

looking at a specific piece of the above model, option b) F = dR since

your study is geared toward assessing the damage caused by mitch. Based

on the before after nature of your project, the following comments are

important:

a) comparing the same site

Before F1 = D1 + R1

After F2 = D1 + R2 ;

Change F2-F1 = D1 - D1 + R2 - R1

F2-F1 = R2-R1

Where F1 = Initial damage levels

F2 = damage levels after mitch

R1 = Initial Rain levels

R2 = Rain levels of mitch

It can be seen that damage(F2-F1) is the result of change in rain

levels(R2-R1) brought by mitch, and it has nothing to do with

deforestation since at that moment deforestation levels were given.

Hence, this part of the study can link the extreme change in rain levels

brough by mitch and the level of damage. I can not see how can this be

linked throught regression analysis to deforestation.

b) comparing different sites

A(F2-F1) = A(R2-R1)

B(F2-F1) = B(R2-R1)

Where A = site A

B = site B

The above indicates that you are comparing the damage in both

sites, but to do that you need sites 1) where the level of rain before

mitch was similar; and 2) where the level of damage before mitch was

similar. Again, nothing to do with deforestation levels as these are in

theory, and in this case in practice, unchanged at the moment that mitch

hit. This again indicates a possible contradiction in your goals in part

I of your proposal. Based on the above, how comparable are the 5 sites in

your plan?.

The second part of your proposal is apparently focus on option

a) F = Dr since you are looking at how different types of deforested areas

may be related to the amoung of damage. In this case, the comments are

the following:

1) comparing the same site seems imposible

F1 = D1 + R1

F2 = D2 + R2

Where D1 = deforested area before mitch

D2 = deforested area after mitch

R = rain fall levelS

Since R1 = R2 in order to find the impact of deforestation on

damage; and since D1 = D2 for the same site if mitch itself does not lead

to deforestation, then:

F2-F1 = 0 ; which indicates that there may be a methodological

inconsistency here.

2) if comparing different sites:

A(F1) = A(D1 + R1)

B(F2) = B(D2 + R2)

Hence, to compare damage levels in different sites due to

different types of deforestation, we need sites which received the same

level of rain fall(R1 = R2) during mitch and different types of

deforestation. If the sites have different levels of rain fall then it

will be impossible to track the net contribution of the type of

deforestation.

B(F2) - A(F1) = B(D2) - A(D1) since should R1 = R2

This may affect your reasoning in component II of your proposal

related to the comparability of the sites selected.

Finally, the third component of your proposal indicates that you

will uses sattilite pictures to identify critical areas. Since

Deforestation before mitch(D1) and deforestation after mitch(D2) is the

same assuming that Mitch itself did no cause deforestation, how can the

sattilite picture differenciate between damage caused by deforestation

and/or by rainfall?.

I hope my comments are useful to your plans;

Sincerely;

Lucio

Note: I left relevant pieces of the original document for proper reference

below to my comments.

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Tom wrote:

> ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS BY HURRICANE MITCH ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF NICARAGUA

> WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO MITIGATE FUTURE DISASTERS - preproposal

> I) HYDROLOGICAL STUDY OF THE IMPACTED ZONES:

>A stepwise mutiple

> regression of these factors will provide a rigorous statistical analysis of

> the relationship between the amount of deforestation and resulting flood as

> well as erosional problems. While the general relationship is not expected

> to come as a surprise to anyone; no rigorous study has been conducted in

> the aftermath of such disasters.

........

> II) GEOLOGY OF LANDSLIDES IN AFFECTED AREAS. This phase will require

>This will include an analysis of the role of deforestation in the

> occurence

> of landslides.

.......

> III) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MITIGATION OF FUTURE DISASTERS.

>

> In the third phase of the study we will start with satellite images to

> identify areas that merit closer examination and site visits and evaluation

> as potential danger spots.

El caso de la Finca de El Espino es un buen ejemplo para sen~alar

el resultado de injectar inseguridad de tenencia de tierra en sistemas the

propiedad privada historicamente estables y el aparecimiento de los

intereses ambientales en El Salvador.

a) Antes de que el programa de reforma agraria(an~os 70s)

fuera implementado en el Salvador el estado ambiental de esta finca era

excelente: no estaba sujeta a explatocion intensiva y hasta cierto punto

estaba abandonada. El conflicto entonsces era entre el sistema social y

economico y ambos consideraban el ambiente como fuente de sustento

solamente y como obstaculo para su exploticion efficiente;

b) cuando la finca paso a manos de cooperativas, la inseguridad

de tenencia de tierra fue introducida en la equacion economia-sociedad.

Es sabido que inseguridad de tenencia conlleva a maximizar la explotacion

de recursos a corto plazo sin preocuparse por situaciones futuras

independientemente de que los grupos sean ricos o pobres. El

sector social tomo las riendas de la finca y el impacto ambiental negativo

todavia se consideraba en esa epoca como minimo o por lo menos reparable.

Por lo tanto en esta epoca, preocupaciones ambientales era mimimas y

cuando existian eran informales y sin peso academico, politico o

institucional;

c) los planes de construir las carreteras aparecieron en este momento de

inseguridad de tenencia de tierras en esta finca y logicamente fue

percibidos como una estrategia pare debilitar el poder cooperative en

poder de la finca, lo que aumento la explotacion todavia mas intensiva de

la finca;

d) los intereses ambientales apareciaron despues que los sectores

tradicionales en conflicto, economico y social, acordaron encontrar

soluciones pacificas a sus intereses. Proteccion ambiental implica

restringir las acciones sociales y economicas tradicionales de

explotacion, lo cual no puede pasar sin una politica de ajuste

economico/ambiental or social/ambiental ya que la opcion ambiental pura no

era y puede que no sea factible hoy. Lo ideal hubiera sido un ajuste

economico/social/ambiental, pero esto no es posible si los sectores

economico/social estan completamente fragmentados; y

d) la falta de accion ambiental, social o economica que resulto en

la division de la finca pueden ser explicada por la posibilidad de que

"haciendo nada" es todavia una decision racional: cada quien obtiene una

parte de el recurso en contencion.

En conclusion, cuando los intereses economicos, sociales, y

ambientales al rededor de un recurso natural no se pueden reconciliar para

hacer un uso holistico de el recurso con vista a uso multiplo, se necesita

incorporar una buena dosis de politica, incluyendo la politica de no hacer

nada, para que el proceso de desarrollo siga adelante. Muchas veces

despues de encontrar una salida politica "la vida sigue igual".

No hay que olvidarse que un proceso paralelo se a dado en cada una de las

otras haciendas y cooperativas dentro y fuera de la reforma agraria lo que

puede ayudar a comprender el aparente incremento en el grado de

degradacion ambiental urbana y rural en El Salvador despues de la reforma

agraria. Inseguridad de tenencia affecta al sector economico, social, y

ambiental y generalmente no proporciona las condiciones necesarias para

una politica sostenible effectiva. Por la tanto, la situacion actual de

la finca es racional.

Saludos;

Lucio

Nota: deje los aspectos mas importantes relacionados a mi commentario

solamente a continuacion.

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Néstor wrote:

> BASTA YA con la Destruccion de El Salvador!

> >Donde estan los del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente?

> >Donde estan los de Recursos Naturales del Ministerio de Agricultura?

> >Donde estan las ONG's ambientalistas?

> >Donde estan los que se preocupan tanto por las aves en cafetales con

> sombra?

> >Donde estamos los biologos que tanto hablamos de conservacion?

> >Que futuro nos ofrece la Corte Suprema de Justicia de El Salvador?

> >Que sera de las furturas generaciones salvadoren~as?

> >Carlos