Success Motivation & Community Empowerment
Showing posts with label Sustainable Development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sustainable Development. Show all posts

Monday, 24 September 2007

COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT

Revealing Hidden Resources
by Phil Bartle, PhD

Abstract

Simply providing resources to a community encourages dependency upon more of the same. Sustainable development of a community, removal of poverty, improvement of self reliance, requires that the community use its own resources. While accepting certain kinds of outside help, it cannot do so in a way that it becomes dependent upon it. Fortunately, every community has resources, often hidden; and the task at hand is to identify and use them.

Introduction

Our goal is sustainable development, poverty eradication, community self reliance, in low income communities. We want to help. But our help can be dangerous; it can contribute to poverty, stagnation and dependency. What we need to do is to understand the nature of poverty and the nature of development better, so as to be able to provide genuine assistance, assistance that contributes to removing dependency on further assistance, not contributing to continued poverty and dependency.

Poverty is Not Absolute

No community is totally and absolutely poor. So long as there are living human beings in the community, then it has resources, enough to allow its residents to survive. If a community is only an archaeological site, with no living residents, then it is no longer a community. No living community is absolutely poor. "Oh!" you say, "but the people have no shoes, no clean water, poor nutrition, high child mortality, illiteracy, apathy, disease, ignorance, intolerance, and no facilities. They need help!" Yes they do, but we, who are interested in sustainable development, must be very cautious about the nature of that help.

Every community has resources.

It is important to remember that every community has resources. Why? If we are to strengthen those communities, we need to release those hidden resources. If we are to assist, we need to assist in ways that strengthen, not weaken the community. If we parachute resources into the community without also using internal resources, we contribute to community atrophy. It would contribute to increased dependence upon the outside, and therefore to continued long term endemic poverty.

What are Resources?

A resource is any good or service that is relatively scarce and relatively useful; in short it has value, it is wealth. Not just any wealth, however, a resource is something that can be used, or potentially can be used, as an input, as something that can be used for the production of some other desired output. It is the raw material of a productive activity; in the case of a community, it is the input for a community project. The most commonly considered resource of a community project is cash; cash is the most fluid or convertible form of resource, for it can be used to purchase or rent real resources (goods and services). Cash is usually scarce, however, and poor communities will have to seek non-cash resources, and try to turn them into cash, or into resources that will be useful to the chosen community project. Community resources include many non-cash goods and services.

Think of the kinds of resources that a community might need for its priority project. It needs land, a place to locate the project. It needs tools to operate the project. It needs raw materials that it will convert into the projects outputs, it needs labour to provide human energy for the conversion, as well as mechanical energy such as electricity sun, wind, water power. Another kind of human resource is mental, people who will help in the planning, monitoring decision making, management, report writing; all of those are resources needed, and can be provided from within the community. The important thing is not to undervalue those non-cash resources, and to put a fair cash value or market value on them (including the time and effort spent by the implementing committee and the executive committee of the community). There is a common tendency for community members to under value these, and a requirement for you, the mobilizer, to ensure that they are given a fair recognition of their worth.

Outside Sources

There are two main kinds of sources of inputs and resources from outside the community. They are (1) government and (2) assistance agencies. Government sources include the regular and fiscal budgetary expenditures of central, regional and district governments who may be responsible for providing goods and services, and ceded funds, to the community.

It is important that the decisions to make these expenditures are done only after communication with the community. Decisions made by bureaucrats in faraway capital cities (national capital, regional capital or district capital) without involving the communities are as bad a charity; they contribute to apathy, dependency, and the sustaining of poverty.

While you as a mobilizer do not have a lot of control over how such decisions are made, you can contribute in two ways: (1) by encouraging and assisting government officers to dialogue with the community in your role of broker (explained more below) and (2) supporting and suggesting the development of policy papers in community development that support a governmental "enabling" environment in which central, regional and district plans are done only in response to the plans and priorities of the local communities. Assistance agencies come in several varieties. For any one community, the most common will be an international NGO, or a national NGO that is funded by an international one. (NGO means non-governmental organization; it usually implies a not-for-profit voluntary agency). Other outside agencies may be churches or their secular assistance departments, bilateral or multilateral projects.

Bilateral means government to government aid, including British DFID, American USAID, Canadian CIDA, Swedish SIDA, Danish Danida, and assistance departments of most wealthy and industrial countries such as Germany, France and Japan, as well as local agencies, often commercial companies, that are funded by the bilateral agencies. Similarly, multilateral agencies include those that are multi nation, including the United Nations and its many emergency response and developmental agencies (UNDP, Unicef, UNHCR, UNCHS, WHO, FAO, WFP). Multilateral also includes the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The International Red Cross claims it is not an NGO; it is an NGO. Like the bilateral agencies, the multilateral agencies usually operate through local private enterprises as consultancies, to implement their projects. Increasingly the international sources of assistance are calling for community participation and sustainable development. Again, your role can be one of broker, especially since foreign agencies are seldom well versed in local conditions and in opportunities for empowering communities by including them in decision making and developmental contributions.

The Charity Paradox

"Helping the poor," is a close to universal human value. The giving of alms or charity is included in the sets of values of the world's major religions. Government assistance to economically depressed areas in a country, international aid by the wealthy countries, and governmental subsidies and support to the disadvantaged, are all manifestations of this close to universal value.

Helping poor persons is not the same thing, however, as overcoming poverty. That is the paradox. Giving assistance to individuals in need may even contribute to the social problem of poverty rather than assist in removing poverty. Why? Giving alms to a beggar trains the recipient in begging, and reinforces his/her conviction that begging is the answer. Giving foreign aid to low income countries reinforces their notion that aid is their right, and can be used to fund their fiscal plans.

Look also at the motivations for giving alms. How does the giver benefit, and therefore has a vested interest in the survival of the custom? In many societies, rich people give money to beggars to appease their guilt because they know that their very wealth is obtained off the backs of the poor (Tolstoy). Giving alms reinforces begging, therefore reinforces the structure of inequality that keeps the elite classes wealthy, and sustains poverty. Do not despair. This paper dopes not argue to abolish aid or outside assistance. Nor does it advocate violent revolution. It argues that the way aid is given is important, and that the "how" must be understood; it is not to do more damage than good. Appeasing the poor (eg poverty alleviation) is not the goal; fighting and overcoming poverty is.

So what does all that -- the charity paradox -- have to do with mobilization? The paradox exists at many levels (individual, community, national, international). There are many social, political and economic forces that sustain poverty. If you are to fight poverty, especially at the community level, you need to understand the charity paradox among those forces. As a broker between a communal and its outside resources, you need to inform both of the dangers of charity. As any good military strategist will tell you, "Know the enemy."
The enemy is poverty.

Release the Resources

Your task as mobilizer is to encourage and aid the community to identify and use its local resources.

You need to reassure the community members that it is not in their best interest to hide their resources (or to hide knowledge of their resources) and to pretend to be more poor than the community is. They may be tempted to do so. Appealing to the pity of donors in that way is neither honest and honourable, nor effective in developing self reliance and empowerment of low income communities.

It is important and necessary to guide community members in identifying internal resources. This can be exciting and fun. Our normal mobilizers' tools are appropriate here: a community or group meeting, a large paper on the wall with a felt pen (or a stick to write and draw in the dirt on the ground). Call for potential resources from the participants (as you would in a brainstorm session), such as a retired carpenter who may be willing to train some young members of the community, some unused land that could be used for a communal facility such as a clinic or school, some unemployed youth who can provide energy and enthusiasm, some farmer or other food producer and some people willing to prepare that food for communal labourers who donate their time and energy, some loyal and trustworthy community members willing to put in time and thinking to design a community project.

Do not analyse suggestions when they first come up (you want to encourage everyone to contribute ideas; some shy participants may fear criticism). As in a brainstorm, you set aside criticism and cross talk; simply list all the suggestions on the wall. Explain that they can be analysed later. Remember to point out that cash is not the only resource, many non-cash resources are valuable. How valuable? A monetary evaluation of the cash value of non-cash resources will eventually be needed for an accurate project design, but can be done later by the community executive committee. Money and wealth, although related, are different things.

When identifying resources in this way, however, do not forget to include potential cash resources. These may include: a fund raising event, a raffle or local lottery (if legal), a sale of donated goods (I have seen a wealthy business person from the city pay a thousand dollars for a glass of water in a public auction in his rural home town). Encourage innovative and non-orthodox thinking by participants, even to suggest things that might not later be done (here you just list them, not analyse them). Just because something has not been tried is no logical reason for not listing it here.

Struggle to Strength

It is well known by biologists that living organisms become stronger in adversity. Sports enthusiasts know that physical exercise strengthens their bones and muscles. Teachers and psychologists know that mental exercises strengthen mental capacity.

So, too, in the sociological realm, a community, group or organization that faces adversity becomes stronger. Not total adversity that kills the organism or organization, but incremental adversity that builds up strengths.

What does that knowledge teach the mobilizer? If communities are given everything as charity, they become atrophied (immobilised in weakness). If, as adviser and guide to a community, you inform them of this principle, if you guide them towards making their own communal decisions, towards taking the time and effort to choose their goals, identify resources and make their own community action plans, you help to empower them and their communities.

If a community struggles, it becomes stronger.

The Mobilizer as Broker

Knowing that potential resources lie outside the community, a mobilizer for that community acts as a "broker" between the community and those sources (including government and assistance agencies). A "broker" is some one who acts as a "go-between" selecting and introducing parties that may not already know each other, and assisting in negotiations and communications between those parties (like a marriage broker).

As a broker, the mobilizer also increases awareness and understanding by both sides. Both the sources (donors and government) and the community members should learn about such principles as (1) "Sustainable development assistance, not charity," (2) "Identify and use local resources," (3) "Struggle to become stronger," (4) "Nothing for nothing," (5) "Help comes to those helping themselves," and other principles in this series of training modules.

Sustainable Development

It is a mathematical impossibility (as well as anti-developmental) to assist every poor community in the world using outside resources. Too many poor communities; not enough available resources. The key to sustainable development, the eradication of poverty, is to release the hidden resources that already exist within all those poor communities.

This is an investment; in order to release those resources, they must be identified, they must be acknowledged both by the community members and the outside donors, and management training must be invested in releasing them. Donors can be more useful in directing their assistance resources towards the training and awareness raising needed to release those resources, than in buying pipes or roofing, and giving aid in other ways that increase dependency rather than self reliance.

Because paper and ink are relatively expensive, it would be out of financial range to produce enough hard copies of the required training material for every rural village and urban neighbourhood in every least developed nation on this globe. It is financially feasible, however, that eventually every human settlement (from rural village to urban neighbourhood) will get access to the Internet. That realisation lies behind the motivation of producing this series of training modules on this internet site (http://www.scn.org/cmp/). The elimination of poverty can be a realistic global goal, with the combination of (1) these methods and (2) the world wide web.

Sunday, 12 August 2007

A Typical Example of "The Unethical Of Truthful Intention"



SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Principle 2: The Ethics of Truthful Intention

The ethics of truthful intention is the ethics of nonmanipulation, of the absence of conflict of interest, of the absence of the game of appearances and self-deception. The principle here is that all deliberations about sustainable development must be based on the intention to assure the best for everything and for everyone on the planet, in a manner that is fair and egalitarian, as transparent as possible, and always based on the real intention to make whatever is necessary happen (to effectively fulfill what is agreed to).

Therefore, no deliberation about sustainable development should take place in an environment of pressure (from lobbyists or special interest groups) that leads to problems of conflict of interest and that diverts decision-making processes from the noble and universal purposes inherent to the very concept of sustainability itself.

The premise here is that, in general, we live in an environment of self-deception and the inversion of values, in which we have come to accept as “normal” the game of promises we know will not be fulfilled, of backroom agreements, of hidden agendas behind apparently well-intentioned proposals, etc., all of which affect the sustainability of our evolution. Obviously, in no way is any of this ethical. Even less ethical is to close one’s eyes to this reality and to do nothing about it, turning this game of illusions into a permanent phenomenon.

The premise here is that this entire arrangement is reversible and that this turnaround is absolutely necessary in order to assure that sustainable development becomes an effective reality.


Typical example of "THE UNETHICAL OF TRUTHFUL INTENTION"

Aluminium smelting plant will make Sarawak more industrialised
Posted By Web Master On 8th August 2007 @ 10:00 In Local

KUCHING: Chief Minister Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud is confident that the development of an aluminium smelting plant in Similajau, Bintulu will enable Sarawak to realise its aim of becoming more industrialised.

METAL FUTURE: Taib witnesses the exchange of documents between Sandeep (left) and Curtis.
Also seen from left are Williams, Groeneveld and Syed Anwar.
Photo by Johnathan Bullet.

Speaking yesterday at the signing of a ‘Heads of Agreement’ between Cahya Mata Sarawak Bhd (CMS) and Rio Tinto Aluminium for a detailed feasibility study on the proposed project, Taib saw the plant as a vital part of the regional corridor of development in the State’s central region. (Read this Articles, click here)

The project is expected to create some 5,000 job opportunities.

Taib expressed a belief that the partnership between the two companies would drive Sarawak’s manpower development to a level of greater sophistication and he assured them that he would give his best support to the project.

“I want to thank Rio Tinto for looking at Similajau as one of the best sites to meet the aluminium demand in the whole of South East Asia. Rio Tinto has the best technology around which we hope to be able to share through CMS,” he said.

In line with CMS’ approaches, he said, Rio Tinto was a very responsible company and its projects included the development of the communities that was working for it and the countries in which they were cited.

He revealed that Second Planning and resource Management Minister Dato Sri Awang Tengah Ali Hassan had visited Rio Tinto’s facilities in Queensland, Australia, and the latter had confirmed the company’s social responsibility. (Read this Articles, click here)



RIO TINTO’S ABYSMAL RECORD

While we can conclude that Alcan itself heavily supplies the arms industry and is invading Africa as it invades Iceland, it is now part of Rio Tinto, the world's largest private mining company, “long criticized for gross human rights violations dating back to its support of apartheid in Southern Africa.”

We will name some of the many cases. Rio Tinto has been known to subject it’s own workers to poisoning in mines, having security guards shooting locals on the spot looking for small amounts of gold in one of it’s mines and having union-members spied upon or fired in its Brazilian gold mines.


Rio Tinto has been involved with mercenary scandals. The Papua New Guinean (PNG) Government, in joint venture with Rio Tinto, hired private mercenary companies Sandline International, a London-based private military company, composed primarily of former British and South African special forces soldiers, which had been involved in the civil wars in Angola and Sierra Leone and were now paid to fight the population of Bougainville, an island near PNG. The mine had been closed by the people of the island because of the disastrous ecological effects .Citizens of Bougainville have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States against Rio Tinto arising from the environmental damage caused by the mine and war crimes occurring during the civil war years. In August 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Rio Tinto's effort to dismiss the claim.


Similarly, Taib was happy that Rio Tinto has already committed itself to the development of skilled and professional workers even before the project starts in Similajau.

The company aims to build a world class technical skills base here to train Sarawakians. Taib in response said that the government has set aside a large tract of land in Mukah for the construction of technical colleges.

On CMS, Taib said the company knows Sarawak well and it has diversified its activities but CMS motivation was not only in profits. He pointed out that when the company established Sarawak’s first stock exchange, it had trained its own remisers.

Besides that, he said CMS had also contributed towards education in Sarawak by investing about RM25 million in a modern pre-school and primary school.

“Of course CMS must make profit like many other companies and it is time to do so.

“In spite of the rather dull performance of the stock exchange after the financial crisis in 1997-1998, CMS has been able to weather the storm and it is now looking forward to other areas of activities which it thinks it can adopt as its contribution towards Sarawak’s development,” he said.

Then tongue-in-cheek, he said that he should not talk too much about CMS because people would accuse him of too much favouritism.

“But believe me, I never interfered in CMS’ company affairs nor have I sat in CMS meetings at all. I think everybody can testify to that but I will give credit where credit is due to encourage any companies in the State,” he said.

The signatories of the agreement were CMS Group managing director Datuk Richard Curtis and deputy Group managing director Syed Ahmad Alwee Alsree, and for Rio Tinto, its managing director Sandeep Biswas and general manager Smelter Project Development, Matt Liddy.

Following the signing of the agreement, a new joint venture company was formed, Sarawak Aluminium Company. Rio Tinto holds 60 per cent stake in the project and 40 per cent is held by CMS.

Also present at the function were deputy chief ministers Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Dr George Chan and Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Alfred Jabu, Australian High Commissioner to Malaysia Penny Williams, CMS Group chairman Tan Sri Syed Anwar Jamalullail, and Rio Tinto Aluminium chief executive Oscar Groeneveld.

More stories on Bakun Project, click here


Article printed from The Borneo Post Online: http://www.theborneopost.com/
URL to article: http://www.theborneopost.com/?p=23023

Power from Scrap


Posted By Web Master In TheSundayPost On 22nd July 2007 @ 10:00
From barely four hours daily, Abok Mawang longhouse folk can now relish a 24-hour supply of electricity produced by a microhydro dam – built at a zero-budget cost from nothing but scrap

JUST two months ago, the Abok Mawang longhouse folk could only have cold drinks from the nearby tuck shops.

WHEEL OF POWER: The turbine at the powerhouse.
Photos by Johnathan Bullet and courtesy of Martin Anyi,Unimas.

They did not have any refrigerators because at that time, electricity supply was restricted — on at 6.30pm and off four hours later. So the longhouse had to stick to a rather regimented lifestyle.

But today, things have changed and happily, for the better. With the help of Mother Nature, kindness from a few good souls and the spirit of unity among the villagers, this quaint 15-door longhouse now enjoys 24-hour free electricity from a microhydro dam in their own backyard.

And what makes it all the more heart-warming is that the dam was built by the villagers with zero-budget… well, almost zero… as discarded and sponsored materials were used. After a picture of the dam appeared in the newspapers, thesundaypost made a day trip to see this prized project which has transformed the lives of the longhouse folks. The scenic Abok Mawang longhouse, with Sri Aman’s majestic Kelingkang mountain range in the background, is about 150km from Kuching City and it’s impossible to miss as it sits just by the main road.

TEAM WORK: Villagers working on the pipes.

The immediate changes the new-found power source has brought the longhouse are clearly visible. Two Astro satellite dishes stick out of the longhouse’s upper walls, and an Iban tune, blaring from one of the pintus (doors), greeted us as we alighted from the car. Come to think of it, if not for the cluckings of the village chicken, it would have been a quiet day everyday… until two months ago.

A shirtless Donald Matin, the headman of Abok Mawang village, emerged from one of the pintus (doors), obviously surprised by our sudden visit. However, he said he had earlier received a call that the press would be visiting and was happy about it. He had every reason to be since his people had sweated and toiled on the dam project and it was time to let ‘outside’ people know about it.

To get to the dam, we had to walk through a muddy excavator trail for about five minutes. It was there we by-passed the powerhouse that generated electricity from the gushing Sungai Embawang Besai. The river was not as what I pictured. It wasn’t big… more or less the size of a stream at Ranchan Pool in Serian in Samarahan division. Amazingly, only two feet of water were enough to get the turbine going — considering the elevation of the powerhouse to the dam, of course — even though the depth of the dam was eight feet or so.

Standing on the thick concrete, I found it hard to believe the dam was put together “cowboy” style, given that the workmanship was apparently neat and a layman would never have guessed it was built with hand-me-downs from good Samaritans. Noticing my quizzical expression, Donald explained that Abok Mawang longhouse had already existed for 17 years and its population of more than 100 (during holidays) was a breakaway from the nearby Abok Janang longhouse.

“You could say the longhouse had gone through about three generations without continuous electric supply,” he said. Donald recalled it was back in January that a group of men came to the village to propose the idea of the mini-hydro dam. He said the villagers decided to give it a go as 24-hour electricity supply was certainly much better than just four hours from the old generator. Thus began the work.

Led by Martin Anyi, a lecturer from the Department of Electronics at the Engineering Faculty of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas), a group of men, whom Donald assumed to be engineers, made frequent trips to the river to study the water source. He noted they even surveyed the land area where the current water pipes passed through. The physical construction began only in September and was almost completed a month later.

According to Donald, his people managed to chip in with about RM2,000 from their own pockets to buy iron rods and some building materials. While the pipes were provided by the Public Works Department (JKR), the generators, switchboards and internal wirings were contributed by JH Corporation Sdn Bhd.

Balai Ringin assemblyman Snowdan Lawan pitched in as well with transmission wires. As work progressed, so did excitement among the Abok Mawang folk grow. They provided the manpower through gotong-royong (self-help) and at times, women and children also helped out. “It was hard work. There were times when it took 20 minutes just to fit a nut on the big pipes.

But look at the dam now… it’s well worth it,” he beamed. It also helped that JKR provided an excavator to lay the heavy high density polyethelene pipes. All the hard work paid off when the longhouse was bathed in bright light on the night of April 30… and continues to enjoy uninterrupted electricity supply everyday since then.

In the next few weeks, the longhouse got five refrigerators, television and radio sets and VCDs, not forgetting Astro service — their link to the outside world. Besides providing some comforts and a small portion of the luxury enjoyed by urbanites, the microhydro dam is, most importantly, saving money for the longhouse folk, most of whom are farmers earning an average monthly wage of RM250.

While admitting that the “old faithful” generator had served the longhouse well over the past seven years, Donald said each pintu (individual unit of the longhouse) had to fork out RM15 per month, excluding costs of black oil and maintenance, just to keep it going. He said the longhouse folks felt the pinch when fuel price nationwide went up recently. The generator could “drink up” to five gallons of fuel per day, he added.

In contrast, with the mini hydro dam now, the villagers only have to donate RM10 per month as maintenance fee… in exchange for 24-hour free electricity. On our way back to the longhouse, we saw a group of women relaxing on the verandah… to the sound of radio music.

Told (in jest) that life must be good now, they — almost in unison — replied in a mix of Iban and Bahasa Malaysia, that times were indeed much better than the ‘regimented’ days when ironing and other household chores had to be done hurriedly between 6.30pm and 9.30pm.

One of the women, 44-year-old Mina Matin, recalled with a faraway look, the words of her late father. “He once told me that lama-lama, ada nasib (soon, there will be luck). I never bothered asking him what he meant at that time but today, I believe the mini-hydro is the luck my father was talking about.”

Thirty minutes later, after experiencing the hospitality of the Abok Mawang longhouse folk and feeling happy that they now have cheaper dam-powered electricity supply — plus a glass of piping hot coffee — we were asked by Donald to sign the guest book.

Looking at the happy faces all round, it was an honour to fulfill that simple request.

Friday, 10 August 2007

Sustainable Development: Ethical Principles for Effectively Making It Happen

by Oscar Motomura*

As a specialist in management and governance, I have focused my energy in the last few years in what I consider to be the critical factor that defines the health of organizations, both public and private: their ability to make things happen. Therefore I have decided – in preparing this presentation – to choose one focus for the ethical principles related to sustainable development. This focus can be defined through the following key question:
• What are the most subtle, least obvious ethical principles that should receive the most attention if we want to be more effective in transforming models of nonsustainable development into models that are not only exceptionally sustainable, but also promote continuous evolution/improvement?

In order to be practical in developing this focus, I have decided to directly address the principles, instead of theorizing or commenting on the theme. Obviously, these principles are only suggestions and incentives for dialogue and debate, not only with regard to their content, but also relative to the manner in which they are expressed. They can and must be improved, based on contributions from everyone.

When composing these principles and the commentaries that contextualize them, I have also tried to adopt the perspective of leaders and statesmen representing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. But I believe that the principles I propose are fundamentally universal.

Principle 1: The Ethics of Effective Action

The ethics of effective action is the ethics of movement. Sustainable development only becomes reality through action. The principle here is that all deliberations about sustainability must include the definition of effective action in all areas that affect the excellence of the final outcome (in keeping with the ecological principles of interdependence and a systemic approach). Therefore, no deliberation about sustainable development should remain merely at the level of theoretical intentions, and not take into account creative and efficient solutions that are capable of overcoming all barriers to effective implementation.

The premise here is that we already have sufficient knowledge, theories that are sufficiently well-founded, more than reasonable evidence, and suitable technologies to be able to make all the necessary decisions to point our development in the direction of a sustainability far greater than that which we have today. Our problem today lies in the absence of more pragmatic actions and in the speed of making things happen. It is not ethical to continue delaying actions that we already know are necessary. For each day of postponement, it is possible to calculate the impacts on sustainability and the problems that are being created in the near and the long term.

Principle 2: The Ethics of Truthful Intention

The ethics of truthful intention is the ethics of nonmanipulation, of the absence of conflict of interest, of the absence of the game of appearances and self-deception. The principle here is that all deliberations about sustainable development must be based on the intention to assure the best for everything and for everyone on the planet, in a manner that is fair and egalitarian, as transparent as possible, and always based on the real intention to make whatever is necessary happen (to effectively fulfill what is agreed to).

Therefore, no deliberation about sustainable development should take place in an environment of pressure (from lobbyists or special interest groups) that leads to problems of conflict of interest and that diverts decision-making processes from the noble and universal purposes inherent to the very concept of sustainability itself. The premise here is that, in general, we live in an environment of self-deception and the inversion of values, in which we have come to accept as “normal” the game of promises we know will not be fulfilled, of backroom agreements, of hidden agendas behind apparently well-intentioned proposals, etc., all of which affect the sustainability of our evolution. Obviously, in no way is any of this ethical. Even less ethical is to close one’s eyes to this reality and to do nothing about it, turning this game of illusions into a permanent phenomenon.

The premise here is that this entire arrangement is reversible and that this turnaround is absolutely necessary in order to assure that sustainable development becomes an effective reality.

Principle 3: The Ethics of Genuine Respect

The principle here embodies the ethics of true respect – and not of respect that is institutionalized, generic, merely for the record – for every living creature on the planet. Sustainable development is only possible if this genuine respect is present in society as a whole. The principle here is that all deliberations that affect the sustainability of our evolution must be conducted by people who have a “vivid sensibility” in relation to the people who are affected by these deliberations and the living creatures involved. The principle here is that this sensibility cannot be based merely on reports, statistics, and numbers. The fundamental idea here is that these people must have direct, eyewitness experience, in order to achieve the level of respect necessary (thus avoiding decisions made on “automatic pilot”). No deliberation about sustainable development should be made by people in offices who do not have this direct experience.

The premise here is that when deliberations become “institutional” at both ends (on one side, an “organization” deliberates, and not people; on the other side is an “interest group,” and not people), they loose their sense of humanity, and become merely about “things.” The same can happen in relation to living creatures that lose their individuality and become mere statistics. It is not ethical to turn living creatures into things, making them unworthy of genuine respect, the kind of respect that we feel in relationship to people close to us, to our pets, to our plants.

Principle 4: The Ethics of Knowledge

The ethics of knowledge is the ethics of knowing what we are doing. It is the ethics of only making decisions in areas in which we have the necessary knowledge. It is the awareness of the risk of deliberating/deciding without this knowledge.

The principle here is that all deliberations that affect sustainable development be conducted by people who are ecologically literate, people who understand how the systems of the Earth work, how the principles that govern Nature work, how the “systemic” works in space and time. Therefore, no deliberation about sustainability should take place in any context if the people involved are not ecologically literate.

The premise here is that many problems of sustainability occur in the world merely because of the ignorance of decision makers, of those who implement decisions, etc. The premise is that our leaders and our politicians urgently need to be educated about the basics of what affects the sustainability of our total development. It is not ethical to make decisions without knowledge about causes. It is not ethical to oversimplify critical questions about sustainability using analogies from a mechanical, linear, reductionist worldview.

The premise here is also that, to the extent that a population as a whole is ecologically literate, sustainable development will tend to occur naturally, beginning at the base of society and moving upward. This is the ideal of a society that takes care of itself, including everything in relationship to sustainable development.

Principle 5: The Ethics of the Integration of Time

This principle refers to the ethics that honors the past together with the present and the future. The principle here is that deliberations that affect the sustainability of development should not simply begin with the present moment, forgetting about decisions made in the past that created the present situation. This means that it is also always essential to honor the systemic in relationship to time, and to see the greater whole. No deliberation about sustainability should take place without taking into account the systemic in time and space, that is, the question of legacies received and those that we will leave for future generations.

The premise here is that in many places on the planet natural resources have been depleted in exchange for a type of non-sustainable development – a development that is unsustainable, but capable of generating other assets, like technology and capital. When we see the whole – from a worldwide perspective – we see the effect of this unbalanced development that has even produced ghettos affecting billions of people. Many countries in Latin America suffer the effects of this imbalance, but, on the other hand, they are today in better circumstances in terms of ecological resources than the "developed” countries. Brazil, as one of the richest countries in the world in natural resources, is a typical example. To honor the integration of time means to give due value to these natural resources that today are fundamental for the whole planet.

It is not ethical for countries that created non-sustainable development to simply demand the “preservation” of the natural resources of developing countries. This preservation now has a value for everyone. It is time to guarantee that all people who need these resources pay for their preservation. And the cost will not be cheap. On the contrary, it will be significant given that now these resources have an inestimable value for the humanity, that is, “There is not enough money in the world...” The premise here, once again, is that in order to build a future that will be better for everyone and for the whole (which is key to sustainability), it is necessary to recognize the legacy we have received and the one that we intend to leave – always taking into consideration interdependence and a systemic perspective. In short, the whole.

Principle 6: The Ethics of Restoration

The ethics of restoration is the ethics of acknowledging mistakes and having the humility to fix them. The principle here is that all the mistakes that have been made in the whole world in terms of sustainability can be corrected.

Part of this correction is simply to stop making the same mistakes and let Nature do its part. Part of this correction is represented by activities of recuperation/restoration. It is to create conditions for the restoration of tropical forests, clean up polluted rivers, rescue animals from extinction, recover natural springs and clean them up when polluted. It is clear that some things may not be recoverable. But a great proportion may and must be recovered. It is the activity of fixing things and leaving them “ready for future generations to use.”

The premise here is that restoration is worthwhile and must be a systemic, global, integrated effort to the extent that it is in the interest of everyone. Will the investment for restoration be high? It could be, but we must consider the opportunity costs as well. What kinds of severe problems will we be avoiding in the future, for the planet as a whole, for the future generations of all peoples? What capital should be used for this restoration? Capital from the whole world, for the sake of the whole world. It is in everyone’s interest.

It is not ethical to accept the present state of things and give up. To restore Nature is a noble act of recognizing our mistakes. It is also to recognize the value of everything that may be key to the sustainable development of the planet.

Principle 7: The Ethics of the Intuitive

The ethics of the intuitive is the ethics that honors human perception. The principle here is that deliberations about sustainable development must honor the intuitive, the subjective, feelings, and not only what is technical, "scientific,” objective. No deliberation about sustainability should remain only at the level of the rational / intellectual, as if sustainability were an exact science.

The premise here is that we still have a lot to learn in relationship to Nature when looking for the key to the sustainability of development. The idea here is not only to preserve Nature. It is to be a partner with Nature and to discover the secrets of sustainability together with her. It is to discover knowledge essential to the life contained in the Nature – essential knowledge that we can apply to the systems invented by human beings. When systems that are artificially created contain the “systemic wisdom” present in Nature, we will have achieved true sustainability.

It is not ethical to settle for the reductionism of the techno-scientific point of view. There is still more yet to be discovered than we have already proven scientifically. We will only be able to uncover this knowledge through imagination and intuition.

Principle 8: The Ethics of the Natural

The ethical principles considered here are those that come from natural or universal laws. The principle here is that we will only achieve real sustainable evolution when the planet as a whole is totally aligned to the universal laws of Nature. The principle here is that all deliberations that affect the sustainability of development need to be based on a deep knowledge of everything that governs Nature. These natural laws must always prevail over laws created by human beings, that are, in most cases, fallible, changeable, and often totally opposed to natural laws.

The premise here is that all those responsible for sustainability – in reality, humanity as a whole – must understand the way Nature works, and the laws that govern it. This is what great scientists are always seeking. When Einstein said that all he wanted was to understand how God thinks (all the rest being something small or trivial), it is this that he was referring to: to universal laws that could, possibly, be expressed in a single mathematical equation (which is where science is heading, toward the socalled Unified Field Theory or Theory of Everything).

It is not ethical to justify activities that result in the non-sustainability of evolution based on the local laws of specific countries, or even laws created by entities with worldwide authority. In a moment in which life on the whole planet is at stake, a foundation in laws that are universal is fundamental. And therein lies the great challenge – to continue our quest for knowledge about the whole and about the laws of Nature. And to assure that everyone who can have an impact on sustainability knows how these laws operate. While we move toward that point, we must be humble and acknowledge all that we still do not know. Then, we will tend to decide with more care and more awareness.

Principle 9: The Ethics of Life

The ethics of life is the ethics inherent in the Great Game, the Game of Life. The principle here is that all deliberations about questions of sustainability must always take into consideration the greater context and the system that the sum of all games – the economic game, the political game, the global competition game, the financial game, etc. – represents. The principle here is the extreme care that must be taken, especially taking into account the irregularities, fallacies, illusions, explicit and tacit rules of this game as compared with the Great Game of Life, the Ideal Game that is capable of creating the sustainability we all dream of. No deliberation about sustainability should be put into effect without considering the game in which the issues appear, how they will be affected (by the game), and how they will affect the dynamics of everything. And no deliberation should be conducted without also considering the other game, the one that transcends all others: the Game of Life (the one defined by universal laws).

The premise here is that the Game of Life is the one that considers life above everything – above the economic, above the political, above the financial, the commercial, etc. The premise here is that perfectly sustainable development will only be possible when life prevails over all other values created by human beings. And when we are capable of questioning the foundations of the very way of life itself, patterns of consumption, etc., that generate the present non-sustainability of our “development” of the planet. It is not ethical to participate in a game of illusions in which the economics of the short term prevails over even the total health of people and of all forms of life on the planet. The premise here is that life must be at the center of everything.

Principle 10: The Ethics of the Common Good

The ethics of the common good is the ethics of what is best for everybody, without any kind of exclusion. The principle here is the search for perfection, the search for a Possible Utopia, in the quest for sustainable development. The principle is that, in practice, we cannot accept less, otherwise there will be gaps through which sustainability itself will become unworkable. Effective implementation requires that everyone be in tune with this pattern of perfection. It is the noble purpose that seeks the best for everyone, that helps to dissolve differences in individual, sectorial, and regional interests and objectives. No deliberation about sustainability should be conducted if the greater purpose (the common good, the best for all) is not clear to everyone. This principle is essential to the concept of sustainability, which is always about the systemic whole/interconnected, and never merely about part of it.

The premise here is that sustainability assumes full cooperation and not competition of the type that prevails in society today. The only positive competition is that which we see in Nature, which is much closer to children’s games (that assume a climate of playing together), rather than war games, in which the other is seen as an enemy. The premise is also that the excess of pragmatism and cynicism that comes with competition is fatal to the generation of sustainable development.

It is not ethical to reduce or lower the level of aspiration when seeking for sustainability. This would be incongruent. In essence, sustainable development is itself the quest for perfection in society as a whole.

This is my contribution to the debates. I hope that it can, in some way, contribute to the effective realization of the world we all dream of. Thank you.

*Founder and president of Amana-Key Development & Education, a Brazilian organization specializing in management education for leaders of private, governmental, and non-governmental organizations.

Thursday, 9 August 2007

LOCAL ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC RENEWAL

Life Happens In Local Communities.

Let’s go back to basics for a moment. Let’s reflect on a simple story.

Suppose a group of friends decides to start a new community in the countryside of a specific region (it could be anywhere in the world). Let’s say it’s a group of 30 families.

They buy land in the same area and help each other build houses and all the facilities necessary for survival. And from the beginning, the whole group – all thirty families – talks a lot and decides everything together. The assumption here is that since everything is going to affect the whole group, everything should be decided together.

They even select a central space in the area for their meetings and social gatherings. Every weekend they meet and make all the necessary decisions. Children and young people also have a voice in the meetings, to make sure their needs (a place for sports, play, etc.) are properly included in the group decision-making process. The whole group makes decisions about the water system, the energy system, communication, roads, transportation, health, education; about production, principles for bartering, problem solving of all kinds. The process always focuses on the well-being of all the members of the community, of all 30 families. There is no exclusion of any kind. And the community evolves …

Slowly the community becomes the ideal place for living that all thirty families had dreamed of together. They are all very happy. Gross National Happiness is at a maximum …

Since they are not isolated from their friends who did not join the group in the “adventure,” each member of the thirty families starts to share with those friends their stories about how and why they’ve become so happy …

The consequences of that sharing are predictable, right? Yes, the other friends now want to join the community as well. And they start to come. And the community grows…

And grows. And grows…

Soon, the weekend meetings are not effective anymore. There are too many people. The community has a problem: it’s more difficult now to reach a genuine consensus, and decision-making processes are slower. As a result, other problems develop…

How can they solve this new problem created by growth?

There’s a lot of discussion and many suggestions. Finally, a consensus emerges: since it’s not possible anymore to hold a meeting in which the entire community participates, groups of families from the same region will now choose a representative. And so the weekend meeting becomes a gathering of the representatives.

From here, you can probably imagine how the story evolves. The epresentatives become overloaded with work – during the week they are supposed to interact with the families they represent, while also being productive members of the community. So, they make a proposal: they want to become fulltime representatives and be compensated (with a salary?) so that they can “make a living”…

In the beginning, this new arrangement works okay. Later, however, distortions appear: there are conflicts of interest, power plays, the representatives become distant from the represented (from lack of genuine interest on the part of representatives, lack of deep dialogue, etc.), and much more. Instead of making decisions by consensus, the representatives also start to make decisions by voting. More and more people become dissatisfied. “Gross National Happiness” declines…

The local economy also struggles with the same issues of scale. It used to be enough to produce for the small group of people who started the adventure, but as the community grew, larger and larger production processes seem to be required… Gradually the economy becomes professionalized and grows away from the community needs.

Over time, another kind of logic replaces the links between the community and the needs that their economic activity was satisfying in the first place. The search for wealth of the new production system takes the place of the wealth of the whole community. Before long, new rules are created so as to facilitate the effectiveness of emerging production institutions. “Gross National Product” becomes an obsession…

The values of the community are transformed day by day… From the search for each-family evolution and the search for the common good to more egotistical objectives, from a concern for the well-being of all living beings and the environment to a concern for better conditions for growth, economic growth… From cooperation, solidarity and mutual help to competition. And, awkwardly, community members seem unconscious of the change process…

Now, let’s go back a step. Let’s imagine a different development of our story from that point on.

Other friends want to join. Yes, they are welcome. But rather than make the first community grow, they are invited to start new communities in the vicinity. And so it goes. And the whole region grows…

Now the region has many communities of 30 families. And they are all doing well. The different communities even collaborate, join forces, have joint celebrations, even produce things together, etc. A natural process of self-organization evolves. Each community maintains its own identity, develops its own forms and degree of contentment.

The “organic” process of growth that existed in the original community remains intact. Each small community focuses on how their economic activities meet their local needs. The needs of the community. Of every member of the community. Total inclusivity, no exclusion of any kind. They trade and cooperate with other communities, but the local residents remain the owners of the production capacities and keep the power on how to make the rules so that the “natural laws” that were very alive in the beginning are kept intact, undistorted… The production and the trading system continues as sound as in the beginning.

Now, what would happen if someone had the idea of creating an organization to coordinate/orchestrate the various self-sustaining communities of 30 families?

Once again, maybe that institution made up of representatives of all communities would work, creating more cooperation among the communities, more synergy, etc. But distortions might appear in this case as well. Even many distortions. The process of coordination could start to happen apart from the communities. The coordinating institution would grow, more and more, and become even larger than the sum of its communities. The communities could gradually become disempowered. Paradoxically, the life of the communities could appear to take place away from the communities.

The most important decisions would be made in the “virtual” domain of control, coordination, bureaucracy … It is a strange process … But, it all happens across generations. Each new generation is born into an existing system that already embeds the distortions. And the way things work seems to be natural…

It does not seem necessary to elaborate further on the details and ideas implied in these stories.

These stories are a way to help us reflect more deeply on the system (political, economic, social) around us. If we cannot understand the basics about life in communities and abstract from them to the larger whole, we will get lost in millions of details. Everything will look fuzzy, confused. Or, on the contrary, crystal clear: the distorted system will look natural, normal, logical. At that point we are blind, asleep, locked in a vast illusion…

Now let’s go back to the reality of today. Can communities become fully empowered and take back control of their own destinies? Can self-organizing processes make the whole (of many communities) evolve more naturally and considerably more effectively than centrally controlled processes?

If power were returned to communities, would life itself become less artificial, and more natural? More in sync with natural laws? Closer to Nature? And only then, truly sustainable?



Author:
Oscar Motomura is the founder and C.E.O. of Amana-Key, a center of excellence in management and governance located in São Paulo, Brazil. Motomura is also a member of the International Council of the Earth Charter.