Inicio > Mis eListas > lea > Mensajes

 Índice de Mensajes 
 Mensajes 1090 al 1119 
  Jaime E.
Chavez, aqui tiene Interfaz
TrastorDigest Tras Edinson
  Jaime E.
  Jaime E.
TrastorDigest 22-0 INTERFAZ
Abuso de poder Héctor B
Otra de Quino Héctor B
TrastorDigest 23-0 INTERFAZ
RE: Vacaciones con Minna Mu
RE: Vacaciones con Interfaz
TrastorDigest 25-0 Interfaz
1000 personas prot Interfaz
Compartiendo ideas Lucio Mu
TrastorDigest (1ra Interfaz
  Jaime E.
  Jaime E.
Caligo Ventures: T Jaime E.
Ayuda para un Espa Asturias
TrastorDigest (2da Interfaz
Fw: Infoagua Notic Fernánde
Delta del Orinoco Jan Schi
RE: Fw: Infoagua N Interfaz
 << 30 ant. | 30 sig. >>
Lista Ecologia y Ambiente - VZLA
Página principal    Mensajes | Enviar Mensaje | Ficheros | Datos | Encuestas | Eventos | Mis Preferencias

Mostrando mensaje 1504     < Anterior | Siguiente >
Responder a este mensaje
Asunto:[LEA-Venezuela] Compartiendo ideas
Fecha:Martes, 26 de Junio, 2001  14:42:10 (-0700)
Autor:Lucio Munoz <munoz1>

Estimados Amigos, este mensaje puede ser de interes de algunos miembros de la lista. Comentarios sobre los documentos en borrador proporcionados seran bien recibidos.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 6:44 PM
Subject: A complete view of the issues from a sustainability angle

Dear Friends, I took the time to visit the world bank webpage to have a close look at the situation under analysis and discussion and to call to your attention the pros and cons of the framework from a sustainability point of view.  I will present things in very simple terms to increase chances of positive exchange of arguments:
Terminology used:
M1 = Market 1
M2 = Market 2
CDB = constellation of deep trade barrier between them
-(D + P) = negative impact on development plus poverty reduction
+(D + P) =  positive impact on development plus poverty reduction
NTB = No trade barriers between them
1) The original situation: first assumption
Originally there are many markets for products and services. including agricultural ones, which are separated by a constellation of deep barriers.  And this constellation of deep barriers is having a negative impact on development growth and poverty reduction in all those markets.  Assuming two markets, this can be represented as follows:
M1    CDB    M2  -------> -(D + P)
First assumption: we must get rid of CDB to solve the problem as this is a very inefficient world
2) The birth of the WTO: second assumption
Bringing the WTO to eliminate CDB creates markets with no trade barriers, which leads to a positive effect on development growth and poverty reduction.  With two markets this can be expressed as below:
M1   NTB    M2  --------> +(D + P)
Second assumption: no trade barriers means positive impact of development growth and poverty reduction: a very efficient world.
3) the complications:
3a) the leveraging/bargaining problem
Representatives of each market/country get together to negotiate in the area between those markets, which I am calling here the dangerous zone because it is a zone where system dominance, maximization forces, and non-binding regulation exist. In this zone, the rule of the strong will most likely prevail.  The outcome of leveraging/bargaining in this dangerous zone is taken as efficient outcome regarless of perceptions of fairness.  I believe that the forces at work in this zone lead to an unsustainable system and the WTO appears not to be equipped to deal with the issues arising in this dangerous zone.  Negotiations between members/groups with unequal power may require unbiased intervention from the WTO to be efficient and equitable.
Those who would like to know more at these views can see my paper draft called: "Maximization, Partial Regulation, and System Dominance: Can they be drivers of true sustainability?";  Then follow the links under SUSTAINABILITY to find it.
3b) the allocation problem: production/consumption
In the dangerous zone, it is impossible to maximize the production function and consumption function of all participants at the same time, which means what we all know, there have to be some losers in order for there to be winners. Losers should be expected to be the weak, the poor, the marginalised. Some have to produced more and some have to produce less and some have to consume more and some have to consume less for the allocation problems between weak and strong actors in the dangerous zone to work properly, and this is what determines who can generate a positive impact on development growth and poverty reduction.  Notice that this situation leads to difficulties between strong producers and weak producers and between strong consumers and weak consumers, some resisting lower bundles and others demanding bigger bundles.
Those interested with the difficulties to be expected when attempting to move from a model that more is better to one that lest is better can take a look at my paper draft called "Substituting the more is better paradigm for the less is better paradigm: Identifying some transitional problems".   Then follow the links under SOCIOECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY to find it.
3c) The Kyoto consistency problem
In the dangerous zone, there are marginal agricultural lands and critical forest areas, both in the hands of strong and weak stakeholders, but there seems to be no link between the WTO, The Kyoto Process, and Marginal Agricultural lands and critical forest areas. This affects the ability of the WTO to link these programs with development growth and poverty reduction in all countries.  This indicate that the role WTO and development growth and poverty reduction is indirect, and therefore it could be positive or negative depending on the circumstances.
Those interested in linking poverty reduction goals and environmental goals can look at one theoretical approach presented in my paper draft called " The preservation plus approach: A simple idea on how to link preservation and poverty reduction goals".   Then follow the links under SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY to find it.
4) No way to guarantee food and other securities to the poor
The way the development model presented in part 2 is set up it is very difficult to expect compliance on issues such as guaranteed food security, effective  preferential treatment even when there is support at home as self-interest in the dangerous zone determines what is to be done, and the WTO has no direct control over this too and appears no ready to deal with this.
DISCLAIMER: I am sharing my draft papers in a positive manner and they are right now draft papers.  Some people may not like my qualitative comparative way to simplifying things, and my apologies in advance to them.  Your comments will be very welcome.
These are my views and since it turned out to be too long, I will let others to continue adding to the arguments or to provide other views.
Sincerely yours;
Lucio Munoz