Subject: [IKD] International Institutions
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:01:36 +0100
From: "Michael Benfield" <Miben@email.msn.com>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <IKD@jazz.worldbank.org>
Quite properly and opportunely, the World Bank's Carl Dahlman asks that this
final week of our discussion looks at the role of international institutions
in development. Without overlooking the constraints under which these
institutions operate, like stakeholders' interests, sources of funding,
limited financial and human resources, imperfect information, knowledge
biases, and other limitations, he asks for concrete proposals on how these
constraints can be addressed. Furthermore, he seeks inputs on how
international institutions can:
- improve their effectiveness in helping create, collect & disseminate
relevant knowledge.
- help create similar local capacity to promote economic and social
development.
Without wishing to cloud these issues with a sub debate over how these
'institutions' should be defined, I would suggest that, along with any other
major international or transnational organisation, en route to answering
these issues, two other 'big' questions need to be re-examined, viz:-
1. What were the original - and continuing - intentions / objectives of
these various bodies?
2. Whose interests were - and are - these designed to protect /
promote?
Until these can be fully unpacked and made totally transparent, we will
remain ignorant of "the reality of the world in which international
institutions operate", with the likelihood being that the whole range of
difficulties raised in this discussion will continue. Likewise we will
remain deprived of any means of considering whether or not these
'institutions' have the capacity, let alone the capability, of responding
positively to Carl's questions.
During this discussion, some have argued that the operations of such
'institutions' may be somewhat removed from the altruism seemingly assumed
by most participants. Whether or not this is the case, my general
observation is that - somewhat bizarrely, and whatever the motives of their
employers - in their private lives a growing number of those people
directing and managing international, transnational and national
organisations and institutions, are becoming increasingly concerned about
environmental / sustainability issues. These are, of course, intricately
bound up with developmental affairs.
The problem is that as soon as these people enter their workplace, their
concerns - and ethos - appear to change. They become pre-occupied with
quantification, number crunching and 'the bottom line', frequently seeming
to neglect the holistic nature of capital. This should of course include,
for example, social, community, welfare, institutional, intellectual,
cultural, etc. capitals. So, the real question may be "How can we not only
encourage people in their changing perceptions, but also get them to apply
these in their workplace?"
If we could achieve this, then we would have begun a sea-change that could
have real significance for an inclusive world. Addressing the two 'big'
questions outlined above could help make a start on this, as would promoting
re-education for true 'sustainability' in the boardrooms of the West.
(Dr) Michael Benfield
Director
Centre for Sustainable Futures
Warwickshire College
Moreton Morrell
Warwick CV35 9BL
England tel: + 44 (0) 1926 651 352
email: Miben@email.msn.com
PS:
Many thanks to the World Bank and the Panos Institute for their efforts in
promoting and moderating this discussion. May I also wish all those taking
part, whether participant or observer, the very best of luck in their
endeavours. Despite disagreements over relevance and importance, we all
seem to share broadly the same objectives. MB
Subject: [IKD] International institutions
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:23:36 EDT
From: GLowe60430@aol.com
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
My name is Graham Lowe. I have been a consultant in rural development and
project management for some thirty years. I have worked for international
institutions (WB, UNDP, UNIDO, and Tacis), the Canadian bilateral agency
CIDA
and USAID as well as NGOs (CECI, CARE International). This work, often in
monitoring and evaluation, has taken me to all the continents of the world.
It is my belief that each of us, vectors and agents of this "international
development", should confront on a daily basis the question of the
pertinence
of our presence in those countries and communities seeking that elusive
Utopia: Development. Despite the unavoidable moments of frustration,
disappointment and depression associated with this Utopia-quest, I still
believe that there is an important role for the international agent and
institution. That role is to create the opportunity for individuals and
institutions in developing countries to try out, to test alternative
responses to their problems. I see this as a conceptual "biosphere", a
developmental environment which protects the project operators from
political, commercial and social pressures. Since local conditions
(political, economic, social, cultural, technical, informational, etc.)
appear to impede "development", perhaps the greatest contribution we can
offer is the chance to modify those conditions, to try something which would
not be possible under normal conditions.
Subjacent to this view is the appreciation that the kind of applied
knowledge
we propound and purvey, in our development projects and programmes is NOT
universal. How many times have we seen experts (real experts!) arrive in a
foreign land only to find that their expertise has diminished if not
evaporated in the absence of necessary facilitating conditions? The need,
then, is to create something extremely local - an alloy of external and
local
knowledge which, in the judgement of most parties (local and external), will
improve the situation of the beneficiaries. This requires humility (we
cannot
guarantee success), experiment (the response must demonstrate its
effectiveness) and respect (both sides, local and external, master knowledge
unavailable to the other). It also demands negotiation, responsibility and
partnership. It is not, for example, the role of international institutions
to finance local power structures or follies, be this at the village,
institutional or national level.
Development, individual or universal, requires three factors: knowledge;
finance and freedom of choice. The delivery of each factor poses
considerable
problems to international institutions, the question of sweet finance
however
attracts the most wasps and hornets. Without finance there seems little
point
to knowing and choosing. (The same argument applies for each factor). But
how
much finance is enough and how do we keep it in the development effort?
I have seen the length and breadth of financing. From bilateral aid spent
wholly in the donor country to multilateral aid granted to beneficiaries
with
little or no accountability. From low-budget volunteers depending on local
communities to the extent that they have little impact on development to
extremely expensive commercial consulting experts dancing attendance on
local
ministries with NO impact on development. The financial problem lies in
ensuring that the aid costs are sufficient and necessary to achieving the
objectives of the project and that the money actually gets there. The answer
is accountability, responsibility and reasonable expenditure. This seems to
imply accountants, M&E (am I preaching for my own parish?) and baseball bats
(it must not be forgotten that these latter are used because they are
effective!). But, each of these measures raises a shudder from those who
care
and a shrug from those who don't!
Finally a comment on the dissemination of knowledge: I believe that good
ideas will be stolen. The rest we have to market! I have seen countless
consultants and experts appearing on local television in pitiful news
broadcasts and producing useless documents in an attempt to "disseminate the
successes". Surely if we simply do a good job, the news will spread
naturally
and we will not have to sift through a mountain of advertisements and
self-justifying trumpeting ... (like this?).
Graham Lowe
GLowe60430@aol.com
Subject: [IKD] Re: Introduction to Week 8
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 11:33:48
From: edfnz@clear.net.nz
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org, IKD@jazz.worldbank.org
CC: Jamed@panoslondon.org.uk
Wellington, 8 April 1999
Serious ecological assessment of the overall world development picture
should discuss the following points, as an integral part of the IKD
discussion:
1) "Sustainable development" does not exist since development is always
leading to material growth, increase of resource depletion and pollution in
a finite world.
2) Any development of the third world must be offset by a de-development of
the rich world in order not to further increase the human impact on earth.
3) Our overall human impact is already an estimated 10 to 20 times higher
than sustainable.
Trends point at a collapse of the systems within one to two generations.
4) It is THIS information that must be included in any discussion on
knowledge transfers. That means that the knowledge itself must be addressed
first in its quality, before it is transferred and thereby adds to the
unsustainability trends.
5) Most organisations work in line with the widely accepted opinion that
growth is good.
Ecologically, however, growth is suicidal.
Would it be possible to allow this issue to have a space in its own right
on the IKD list, without re-editing or making it part of your own edited
opinions?
With kind regards,
Helmut E. Lubbers
BE MSocSc DipEcol
trustee edfnz(ct)
*** ecology discovery foundation new zealand (charitable trust)
*** P.O. Box 24184, Wellington, New Zealand
*** Telephone: ++64 - 4 - 3843269 - Fax: ++64 - 4 - 3898922
*** Email: welcome@ecoglobe.org.nz - http://www.ecoglobe.org.nz
*** edfnz(ct) is an independent Ecology Advocacy Organisation
************** ecoglobe - for better answers ****************
Subject: [IKD] SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DOES EXIST!
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:18:15 EDT
From: VACOASTIST@aol.com
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
CC: edfnz@clear.net.nz
My name is Warren Flint and I am with Five E's Unlimited
(www.eeeee.net). This is a response to Lelmut Lubbers comment on
4/8/99 that "Sustainable development does not exist ...... ". I
must seriously disagree with this view for the reasons briefly
listed below.
I am providing this rebuttal primarily to stimulate further
discussion on the understanding of "sustainable development." For
without a clearer articulation of what is meant by this often
implied oxymoron, any progress made on the international scene with
regard to development initiatives will fall short of achieving
sustainability. I would even go as far as to say that this is a
perfect example of our problems with the international exchange of
information.
I encourage Mr. Lubbers or others who want to pursue this dialogue
further to visit www.eeeee.net which is a web site devoted to
conversations about sustainable development. This site offers the
opportunity for the visitor to submit comments on what they read
and what they believe for sharing with the wider community.
The concept of sustainable development is widely discussed. For
everyone who believes in its concepts, however, there are probably
ten times as many who do not, either because they are confused by
the notions embraced in its theory, it suggests unwanted sacrifices
on the part of citizens, or people just don't trust its ideas.
Unfortunately, to many sustainability is cast as a "thing we do" or
a "program we carry-out" rather than a way we reason and a way we
choose to live. Sustainability should be viewed as a philosophy,
or ethic, affording people the ability to consider long-term
consequences of actions and to think broadly across issues,
disciplines, and boundaries.
Development that is sustainable means achieving human well being
without exceeding the Earth's twin capacities for natural resource
regeneration and waste absorption. In most instances, this implies
thinking about things other than simply "growth." Thus, the
distinction between growth and development, which suggests the
difference between quantity (growth) and quality (development) in
societal improvement. Think of the human body as a corollary. We
grow during our youth, but at some point our bodies constrain
further growth (as our global environment is quickly constraining
further economic growth). But do we as humans stop developing.
No. We continue to learn more through our experiences and develop
new and different behaviors and attitudes as we mature and age.
But we are still confined in the same general shape and size of our
bodies. This may be a slightly far-fetched example but I hope it
stresses the point that society can continue to develop, through
changes in behavior and attitude as well as use of new
technologies, while not growing economies, populations, and
consumption.
I will admit that this all requires a real rethinking of "quality
of life" issues for our global society, but I must strongly state
that this does not mean that the concept and practice of
sustainable development does not exist.
Warren Flint
***********************************************************
Dr. Warren Flint
Five E's Unlimited
PO Box 311
Pungoteague, VA 23422 USA
Tel: (757)442-5588 fax: (757)442-5488
e-mail: rwflint@eeeee.net
web site: http://www.eeeee.net
Specializing in sustainable development that balances economic
improvement and environmental quality, equally for all stakeholders
of watersheds, coastal zones, rural communities, and urban regions.
***********************************************************
Subject: Challenge Filed to the Ayahuasca Patent
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Department of Zoology <pdh@u.washington.edu>
To: indknow@u.washington.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:44:36 -0800 (PST)
From: David Downes <ddownes@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Challenge Filed to the Ayahuasca Patent
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
I thought you might be interested to know that on March 30, the Center for
International Environmental Law, the Coordinating Body of Indigenous
Organizations of the Amazon Basin, and the Coalition for Amazonian Peoples
and Their Environment filed a request with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office seeking the cancellation of a patent on the "ayahuasca"
plant. This patent, Plant Patent No. 5,751, was issued to Loren Miller on
June 17, 1986. It claims rights over a supposed variety of B. caapi, which
Mr. Miller dubbed "Da Vine."
Shamans of many indigenous tribes of the Amazon collect the plant - which
has the scientific name Banisteriopsis caapi - and process it with other
rainforest plants, according to traditional techniques, to produce a
ceremonial drink -"ayahuasca," also called "yagé". The shamans (traditional
healers and religious leaders) use ayahuasca in religious and healing
ceremonies to heal the sick, meet with spirits, and divine the future.
According to tradition, ayahuasca is prepared and administered only under
the guidance of a shaman.
We made two submissions to the PTO. The request for reexamination seeks
cancellation of this particular patent. In a letter to the Commissioner, we
call for a more general review of the treatment of traditional knowledge and
biological diversity under United States patent laws.
As we explained in our request to the PTO, the ayahuasca patent is utterly
flawed. Patents are supposed to reward those who add something to the
world's store of useful knowledge. In exchange for this contribution, the
inventor receives an exclusive right over the use and sale of the invention.
Thus, a person can patent a plant under US law if it is a new and distinct
variety. The original idea was to reward people like fruit growers who
invest in developing new varieties of apples or other crops.
The patent in this case is completely inconsistent with the patent law's
original goals. This patent claims the plant is novel because the patent
owner identified its medicinal qualities. But indigenous peoples have known
the plant's medicinal qualities for many generations. The patent claims
that the plant is distinct because it has different colored flowers from
other plants of the species (Banisteriopsis caapi). But according to a
leading expert, this plant's flowers are typical of the species.
Equally important, this patent claims as private property something that is
a sacred to the religions of the indigenous peoples of the Amazon. In
their cultures, this sacred plant is something to be shared, respected and
used with caution. It is not something to be privatized, bought or sold.
While this is an important case, it is not an isolated one. The ayahuasca
patent is a symptom of broader problems. When people can claim as their own
inventions naturally occurring plants and ancient knowledge, we worry that
our patent law system has lost sight of its original goals of supporting
innovation. When an individual can claim as private property something that
is the sacred heritage of dozens of cultures and thousands of people, we are
concerned that private property has expanded too far into the public domain.
The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by over 170 countries,
recognizes that the genetic and chemical information found in biological
diversity is a valuable natural resource that is a heritage of the countries
and communities where it is found. Much of the world's biological diversity
is found in the territories of indigenous peoples, where they have
maintained and conserved it through their traditional systems of stewardship
of land and natural resources. As you know, concerns are growing that this
biological diversity, like traditional knowledge, is being appropriated as a
resource for patented technologies, without consent or adequate
compensation.
These trends have important implications not only for indigenous peoples but
for the public at large. In an unprecedent event, a group of shamans -
traditional caretakers of knowledge in their culture - came all the way from
the Amazon rainforest to Arlington, Virginia, where they made their request
to the office of the PTO. Now we await the response of the PTO - an
important authority in the United States system of managing knowledge. We
hope that today's events will start a dialogue through which the PTO will
reassess the treatment of biological diversity and cultural and moral values
under the patent law, and consult with the public on possible reforms.
If you would like more information, please let me know. Available documents
include a two page fact sheet on the legal issues, a three page letter to
the PTO, and the formal request for reexamination, which is about 30 pages
long, all in MS Word format.
Best regards,
David Downes, Senior Attorney
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
1367 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Ste. 300
Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S.A.
Tel: +1 (202) 785-8700 Fax: +1 (202) 785-8701
E-Mail: ddownes@igc.apc.org
WWW: http://www.econet.apc.org/ciel/
Subject: Re: [IKD] Introduction to Week 8
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:49:56 -0500
From: "Elisabeth A. Graffy" <egraffy@usgs.gov>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <IKD@jazz.worldbank.org>
Upon first reading Carl Dahlman's introduction to the final week, my heart
sank. As qualified by the many constraints noted by him ("stakeholders
interests, the source of funding, limited financial and human resources, and
imperfect information and knowledge, including biases, and other
limitations") the roles of international organizations in development will
generally be modest, potentially conflicting, and likely reflect the
priorities and cultural goals of the countries that have put the most into
the pot and/or that hold the most political or cultural sway, i.e., those
that are the most effective and expressive stakeholders. This is as it has
historically been. If the constraints and incentives have not changed, why
would the nature of roles change? Why, indeed, carry on this discussion at
all?
Well, if the logistical context has not changed, then the only reason to
even ponder future roles of international orgs in development
comes from a belief that a new consciousness or way of thinking about
development itself may create new ways of "doing" business.
Carl says the WB is most interested in hearing about concrete things they
can do and spend money on, not elusive advice that the WB assist in
knowledge transfer. Well, that's understandable, but on the other hand, the
specific projects undertaken may not be where the real change needs to
happen to improve the chances of arriving at sustainable,
poverty-alleviating solutions. People on this conference have offered a lot
of examples of good projects that might be undertaken. Is there an a priori
reason to choose pot-making over medical assistance? Agricultural
improvement over AIDS prevention? Family planning over regional economic
cooperation? No. But the manner in which development efforts are undertaken
legitimizes or delegitimizes different knowledges and solutions related to
sustainable development. In this sense, the biggest difference international
organizations themselves can make in the future will come from the success
with which they advocate for open dialogue about development pathways; find
ways to correct for the laissez-faire market of ideas in which non-English
speakers are marginalized; become "mediators" of what development can mean.
Put another way, sustainable solutions are likely to be found in the WAY
things are done as much as in what is done.
Can the World Bank and other orgs do it? Not sure. Doing it would certainly
mean investing resources a little differently. For instance, more money
would need to be spent and innovative organizational management undertaken
to make sure balkanization between, say environmental and enterpreneurship
programs is overcome. That's not easy. Nobody does multi-objective
development very well at this time, but that's where the future of
sustainability is. .....More money and some political capital would have to
be spent identifying stakeholders as an explicit part of each development
project. Working with them effectively rather than just to check the box is
tricky. .......This approach will will lead to recognition of non-technical
conflicts that impede long-term poverty alleviation, which often means
confronting deeply-ingrained structural social and political issues that are
not normally the business of poverty alleviation programs. Delicate
politics. How will or can international orgs deal with that?......More money
would have to be spent training organization staff about how to think
differently about development itself and about the way business is done, the
way expert teams are put together, the project objectives that are designed
into assistance projects, the milestones by which program successes are
evaluated, etc. That's not easy to do at all, let alone well. But it's the
challenge.
Strategic reorientation of organizations toward sustainability is happening
everywhere, not just in the develpment community. Businesses, governments,
community groups...everyone is struggling with what it takes. No reason
international organizations should be doing otherwise. The special role for
development organizations, though, is to model how a change in thinking from
deterministic development to sustainable, adaptive development can actually
change how things are done. The use of information in this transition is
obviously believed to be a crucial element, as evidenced by the creation of
this conference in the first place. But what is that actual use?????? During
the last 7 weeks, there has been a large show of hands to support a view
that information is critical to development, not in and of itself, but in
how it is used and incorporated into the knowledge base of those who
presumably can benefit from it. Information, many have demonstrated, is not
a commodity to be traded like machinery and clothing. When it comes to
information, which is inherently a very powerful tool for social change, the
knowledge context is everything. So that's where the WB and others can best
invest program resources. Don't just wire up the globe to the internet. Seek
to even the playing field of discourse. Provide contexts within which the
relevance of emerging information to an indigenous knowledge base can be
explored and adopted -- or rejected -- wisely. Break the mystique
surrounding scientific information as objective and deterministic.
Development is a set of options, not a single pathway. Help people make
informed, adaptive choices. Invest in creating information/culture brokers.
Support and offset hard-wired information exchange networks made of fiber
optic cables and computer screens (which will undoubtedly be set up) with
soft-wired knowledge sharing networks made up of people. Cumbersome?
Elusive? Yes, but indispensable.
Elisabeth A. Graffy
egaffy@usgs.gov
Subject: [IKD] Re: RESPONSE - SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DOES EXIST!
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 01:03:09
From: welcome@ecoglobe.org.nz
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
CC: edfnz@clear.net.nz
9 April 1999
I have carefully read Warren Flint's "rebuttal", but I find no direct
reference to the arguments in my post. (Information overload requires
brevity. As a participant in a list discussion I only react to what I read
in the posts.)
"Sustainable development" means development that can go on for a very long
time.
Given the fact that
(a) development (including "qualitative growth", for any practicle purpose,
is material,
(b) our environmental impact has already overshot sustainability levels by
far, and
(c) environmental trends point at an impending collapse in one to two
generations,
the adhesion to "sustainable development" is not defendable.
Hoping that technology will, one day, bring the solution, is wishful
thinking. Reality demands that we deal with today's problems applying
today's
means and knowledge.
Kind regards ... Helmut Lubbers,
*** ecology discovery foundation new zealand (charitable trust) ***
Subject: [IKD] Implications for international institutions
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:40:40 +0200
From: "Paul Mundy" <paulmundy@netcologne.de>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: "IKD conference" <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
CC: "Michel Loots" <mloots@globalprojects.org>,
"Anil Gupta" <anilg@iimahd.ernet.in>,
"Guus van Liebenstein CIRAN" <lieb@nuffic.nl>
As someone pointed out earlier in this conference, big international
institutions sometimes have a habit of taking up good ideas from others and
creating new programmes -- instead of supporting the original activity. The
new programme hijacks the funding and kudos, leaving the organization that
originated the idea struggling.
While it's encouraging to see the heavyweights get behind good ideas, it
might be more effective, and somehow fairer, if international institutions
were to support the original organization rather than competing with it.
In the IKD realm, several initiatives are already doing some of what has
been discussed during this conference:
* In indigenous knowledge, the IK network coordinated by CIRAN
(http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ik.html) provides a platform for discussion of
issues and presentation of successes (and failures).
* The Honeybee network (http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/) identifies and
publishes promising indigenous technologies, taking care to recognise the
relevant intellectual property rights.
* In the provision of user-friendly knowledge, the Humanity Libraries
project (http://www.oneworld/globalprojects/humcdrom) collects printed
materials from various organizations, converts them to electronic format,
and makes them available free via the internet or at very low cost via
CD-ROM.
These and similar initiatives deserve greater support from international
institutions. Perhaps other participants to this conference can suggest
others?
On a broader scale, I'm always struck by the lack of consideration for
information and communication in most development projects. In agricultural
research (the area with which I'm most familiar), the bulk of funds go to
research, infrastructure, training and whatnot; very little (if any) goes to
communicating the results of the research to farmers and other clients. The
communication of new technologies is seen as something that happens at the
end of the process (so can be dealt with later), or is someone else's job
(so isn't part of the project at all).
While there are some encouraging trends (such as the increasing involvement
of farmers and extensionists in designing and implementing research), the
lack of emphasis on communication remains a key flaw in many projects.
International institutions can play an important role in changing this, both
by funding such activities as an integral part of development efforts, and
by ensuring that information and knowledge issues are placed firmly on the
development agenda.
Paul Mundy
development communication specialist
paulmundy@netcologne.de
http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa
tel +49-2202-932 921, fax +49-2202-932 922
No comments:
Post a Comment